GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 9, 2009
Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Gina Reeves, and Tim Ryan (Chair).
Members Absent: Jack Burriss and Councilmember O’Keefe.
Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Law Director, Mike Crites.
Visitors Present: Britney Hayes, Chuck Dilbone, Constance Barsky, Jeff Oster, Ellen Fugate, Phil Wince, Zack Graines, Tim Hughes, and Lauren Weidner.
Appointment of Tom Mitchell to the Planning Commission by Law Director Crites.
Selection and Swearing In of Chair:
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to appoint Tim Ryan as the Chair to the Planning Commission. Seconded by Ms. Reeves.
Roll Call: Reeves, Mitchell, Ryan. Motion carried 3-0.
Selection and Swearing In of Vice Chair:
Ms. Reeves made a motion to appoint Tom Mitchell as the Vice Chair to the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Ryan.
Roll Call: Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan. Motion carried 3-0.
No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.
130 North Granger Street – Granville Exempted Village School District – Application #09-04
SRD-B (Suburban Residential District-B) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)
The request is for architectural review and approval of the following:
1) Side replacement door with heavy duty aluminum door; and
2) Replacement of western, eastern and southern windows with energy efficient aluminum windows.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry and Chuck Dilbone.
Discussion regarding Application #09-04:
Chuck Dilbone, 130 North Granger Street, stated he does not want to change the look of the building, but make it more energy efficient. He stated that the windows, as they are now, allow the air to enter the building easily. Mr. Dilbone stated that Capitol Windows has been asked to match the windows used to replace the windows at the middle school for the district office as closely as possible. He stated that the windows currently have a middle section that opens at the bottom making them very inefficient. Mr. Dilbone presented two types of windows as possible replacements. Planner Terry labeled the two alternatives as Exhibits A and B. Mr. Dilbone stated that the District prefers the look of Exhibit B. He stated that the option to open the middle window is still preferred. Mr. Dilbone stated that a door on the side of the building is also being replaced. He stated that the replacement will be with the same type of door in the same color using the existing frame. Mr. Mitchell asked about doors in the photo labeled D1. Mr. Dilbone stated that the door shown in the photo is not being replaced. Mr. Mitchell stated that this does not appear to be a controversial issue and favors the look of Exhibit B.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-172:
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. Mr. Mitchell stated that the new windows maintain the look of the building as it is now and updates the building.
c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Ryan added that the windows will make the building more energy efficient.
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 Capitol Model325 ES Window System, manufactured by Capitol Aluminum & Glass Corporation; glass type is 1” grey tinted Low-E tempered insulated glass; frame finish is clear anodized. The door replacement is a Western heavy duty aluminum door with 4 ½ stiles; bottom rails, manufactured by Capitol. The eastern door will be Flush FRP door manufactured by Capitol.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-04 as submitted with the use of window pattern - Exhibit B. Seconded by Ms. Reeves.
Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Mitchell, Ryan. Motion carried 3-0.
Application #09-04 is approved as submitted.
224 East Broadway – Brits Follies – Britney Hayes - Application #09-06
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 Planner Alison Terry and Britney Hayes. Phil Wince and Tim Hughes were later sworn in.
Discussion regarding Application #09-06:
Britney Hayes, 452 Pleasant View Drive, stated that in replacing the porch, the existing pillars were unusable due to wood rot and decay. Ms. Hayes presented some literature pertaining to the railing and columns. She stated that the railings are not installed, but the columns are as they support the porch above. Ms. Reeves asked if any additional detailing will be added to the columns beyond what is shown in the submitted information. Ms. Hayes stated that the columns were to be painted white with no additional detail. Planner Terry stated that Planning Commission was provided pictures showing the way the front of the building looked prior to renovation (when the application was submitted) and the current view. Mr. Mitchell stated that this particular building was part of a historical spa. Ms. Hayes stated that it was the location of a doctor’s cure in the 1800’s. She added that quite a bit of research was completed to discover the original look of the building. Ms. Hayes presented a sample of a proposed wood with a vinyl coating spindle. Planner Terry stated that the change in the look of the columns pertains to the lower level – from concrete to fiberglass. She stated that the upper columns were wood and are now fiberglass. Mr. Mitchell stated that the concrete columns were unique and that something more ornate than just a plain round column could be expected. He stated that there are accessories the applicant can add. Ms. Reeves agreed and stated that she would hate to see all of the character that was once part of this building taken away. Mr. Ryan stated that he agrees, the columns would look better with a cap and base. Mr. Mitchell suggested that the applicant come back to the Planning Commission with sample columns providing more decorative features. Ms. Hayes questioned if the columns would have to be cut down as they are currently holding 14,000 tons. Ms. Reeves stated that the cap and base could be built around the column. Mr. Mitchell stated that it would not be terribly difficult to add a cap and base. Mr. Ryan stated that it is the bottom three pillars being questioned as the upper three match closely what was previously in place. Planner Terry stated that Ms. Hayes may want to look at Fycon, a company that makes composite spindles. Ms. Reeves stated that there is not a whole lot of ornate detailing on the building as it is now. She would like to maintain the decorative character of the building that was previously there. Mr. Ryan stated, that when the Planning Commission originally approved the renovation plan, Ms. Hayes indicated that she was going to try and save the columns and railings. She was aware that the Planning Commission also wanted to save this detailing. Mr. Ryan indicated that the Planning Commission was looking for greater architectural details. Mr. Mitchell agreed that there are other choices available for decorating the cap and base beyond what Ms. Hayes presented this evening. Phil Wince, 2350 West Broadway, asked the Planning Commission if they are trying to encourage restoration of the building back to way it looked prior to the porch being torn down. He added that the porch was not original to the building. Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission’s understanding from the applicant was that the building would maintain the look of the building prior to renovation. He stated that the columns do not necessarily have to be made out of concrete - maybe wood or vinyl. Mr. Wince stated that the original columns were made out of sandstone. Mr. Ryan stated that the Commission approved renovation based on maintaining the existing historical look. Planner Terry asked the applicant if they wished to continue the application to a future Planning Commission meeting so they could gather additional information. Mr. Wince and Ms. Hayes indicated in the affirmative. Tim Hughes, 142 East Broadway, stated that if the Planning Commission wants the building to maintain a particular historic period, the concrete pillars were put in place at a much later date. Mr. Hughes stated that the columns should be plain to reflect the appropriate historic character in the purest form. Mr. Wince stated that these columns were selected to match the existing columns on the Huntington Bank and Noir buildings. Ms. Reeves and Mr. Mitchell indicated that this does not change their opinion that the columns and porch itself should have more detailing. Mr. Hughes stated that the historic character of the building is not just from one period as it was added onto years ago. Mr. Ryan stated that he doesn’t have a problem with round columns or the presented capital and base, but would like to see a little more emphasis on detailing and something more than plain spindles. Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Reeves agreed. Mr. Wince indicated that he is still a little confused regarding the Commission’s comments pertaining to taking the structure back to its original look. He stated that the porch detailing would not have been original to the building. Ms. Reeves stated that the Planning Commission is requesting more decorative detail that reflects what was removed.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to continue the meeting until February 23, 2009.
Seconded by Ms. Reeves.
Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Mitchell, Ryan. Motion carried 3-0.
Application #09-03 is tabled until February 23, 2009.
Work Session with Dr. Jeff Oster, regarding a proposed community garden to be located at 1159 and 1179 Cherry Valley Road.
Discussion: Jeff Oster stated that he has wooded land located behind his business on Cherry Valley Road. He has gardened for years and recently began discussions with Spencer House and a couple churches about utilizing approximately ½ acre of this property as a community garden. Mr. Oster added that he is still in the primary stages and the proposal may not be completed. Planner Terry stated that the PCD (Planned Commercial Development) applies to the whole property including the vacant areas of his property. She stated that the Planning Commission will address issues such as additional parking. Mr. Oster stated that he does not believe parking will be a problem as most of his retail business via that internet. He only has two or three customers at any given time, so he does not anticipate much crossover. Councilmember Barsky questioned if the rear lot was wooded or open space. Mr. Oster stated that the east side has a row of apple trees and the other side hasn’t been touched for four to five years. She asked if Mr. Oster would keep woods that exist there currently. Mr. Oster stated he would. Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission is charged with determining whether or not this request is a significant change to the PCD plan. Mr. Mitchell questioned how the Planning Commission has any jurisdiction regarding this situation. Law Director Crites explained that the Planning Commission has a development plan previously approved by Council. If this group deems this request to be just a minor altercation to the approved PCD plan, there is no need to go back to Council. Mr. Mitchell asked when the PCD plan was originally approved. Planner Terry stated 1998 and 2002. Planner Terry stated that the Planning Commission will need to determine if the parking spaces are sufficient with this modification and if the request overlaps with current business hours. Mr. Mitchell stated that it is currently being used according to the originally approved plan and that the applicant is not looking to add any permanent structures. Ms. Reeves and Mr. Ryan agreed that the request by Mr. Oster is not a major change to property. Mr. Mitchell stated that Mr. Oster will have to come in for approval if a fence was added. Planner Terry stated that this would require an administrative approval. Law Director Crites read aloud the following language in the Code pertaining to PCD’s:
“With approval of the Commission, minor modifications of the approved Plan may be made. Such modifications shall not increase the overall density on the lot or change the essential character of the original approved plan. If the Commission determines that such proposed changes significantly alter the original Plan, such plan must be resubmitted to Council for approval.”
Law Director Crites suggested that the Planning Commission decide if the proposed changes significantly alter the original plan. Mr. Mitchell stated that he doesn’t believe the proposed change is a significant from the original PCD plan and that parking would not be an issue. Ms. Reeves and Mr. Ryan agreed. Mr. Oster was informed that he can bring a formal request to the Planning Commission if he plans to move forward with the garden. The Planning Commission does not believe this request would be a significant change to the original plan and would not need additional approval from Council.
Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1177.01, 1177.03, 1177.04, 1177.05, 1177.06, 117.07, and 1177.08 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio pertaining to the Flood Overlay District.
Discussion: Planner Terry stated that the yellow highlighted text refers to the changes requested by the Planning Commission. She stated that the two feet (2’) flood level has replaced the three feet (3’) flood level. She has also changed the language regarding compensatory storage on adjacent properties (see page 15). Planner Terry clarified that a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis will need to be done to get to a no net loss. Mr. Mitchell questioned if this requirement expected too much from the property owner. He agreed with the H & H “so long as it doesn’t cost someone a million dollars to do.” Planner Terry stated that this is standard and at minimal cost.
Ms. Reeves made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Code Revisions that amend Sections 1177.01, 1177.03, 1177.04, 1177.05, 1177.06, 117.07, and 1177.08 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio pertaining to the Flood Overlay District to Council. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.
Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan. Motion carried 3-0.
Finding of Fact Approvals:
Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.
The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1162, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby approves Application #09-04 as submitted with the condition that the window style shall be the same as Exhibit “B.”
Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-04. Seconded by Ms. Reeves.
Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan. Motion carried 3-0.
Approval to excuse absent Planning Commission members:
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to excuse Jack Burriss and Lyle McClow from the Planning Commission meeting on February 9, 2009. Seconded by Ms. Reeves. Motion carried 3-0. Mr. Ryan questioned if Mr. Burriss was reappointed by Council. He indicated that Mr. Burriss has not attended a Planning Commission meeting in 2009 and questioned how his attendance could affect his position on the Commission.
Approval of the Minutes:
January 26, 2009
Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the January 26, 2009 minutes as presented. Seconded by Ms. Reeves. Motion carried 3-0.
Adjournment: 8:05 PM
Ms. Reeves moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 3-0.
February 23, 2009
March 9, 2009