Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 11, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Gina Reeves, Lyle McClow, and Councilmember O’Keefe.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry

Visitors Present: Eileen Arant, James and Donna Brooks, Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Leavell, Meg Paolacci, Brenda Carey, Michael Carey, Fred Abraham, and Joe Hickman.

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

238 East Broadway – James Brooks – Application #09-29- AMENDED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of replacement of all existing double

hung windows, currently wood, with vinyl double hung windows with 6 lite interior

grids. 

                                                             

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-29:

James Brooks, 238 East Broadway, stated that after the discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting he decided to take Mr. Burriss’s suggestion of installing six divided lite windows.  He stated that he is amending Application #09-29.  Mr. Burriss questioned the width of the grids.  Mr. Brooks stated that they are standard size.  Ms. Terry stated that there is an architectural example of a home very similar to Mr. Brooks’ home in the ‘American Field Guide.’  Mr. Mitchell clarified that the single pane windows were previously approved and this is an amendment to this application.  Ms. Terry agreed.  Mr. Burriss stated that he votes that this is a positive amendment to the application.  Mr. Brooks stated that he will also be submitting to install new shutters on the structure.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would certainly be in favor of this.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-29:

 

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 windows are architecturally appropriate to the structure.   

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

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the new windows  contribute to the authenticity of the district.     

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the windows are a restoration of the original structure. 

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing to replace windows with vinyl six lite divided windows.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-29 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-29 is approved as submitted.



New Business:

 

234 West Elm Street – Daniel Leavell – Application #09-39

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

The request is for review and approval of the following items:

1)      To replace all existing asphalt 3-tab shingled roof with standing seam metal roof in a dark gray color; and

2)      To replace existing box gutters with 5” square aluminum white gutters & 2” x 3” rectangular aluminum white downspouts.

                                                             

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-39:

Dan Leavell, 234 East Elm Street, stated that all of the shingles will remain and the metal roof will be put over them.  Mr. Ryan asked the color of metal that will be used.  Mr. Leavell stated ‘Charcoal Gray.’  Mr. Leavell presented a picture of an example of a white house with the same color of gray roof.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if a metal roof is historically fitting.  Mr. Burriss stated that a metal roof would not be inappropriate on this particular house.  Mr. Burriss asked how the ridges will be detailed.  Mr. Leavell stated that there will be a vented cap.  Mr. Leavell stated that he is unsure exactly how the ridges will be installed, and he does know that the rubber part at the top of the roof will be replaced.  Mr. Burriss stated that there have been problems with these type of metal roofs making buildings look like farm or agricultural buildings.  Mr. Leavell stated that he intends to use seamless aluminum guttering.  He explained that there will be thirty-six inch (36”) panels and nine inches (9”) between the ridges and the metal pieces will be custom cut at the St. Louisville factory.  Mr. Leavell stated that he likes that the installer does not have to tear off the original roof and put it in a landfill.  Mr. Mitchell asked why the applicant is doing away with the box gutters.  Mr. Leavell stated because they do not work and drain well.  Mr. Burriss agreed that they are very shallow.  He then asked how the detailing of the metal roof coming down to the new gutter will be handled.  Mr. Leavell explained that they will be cut back a little and plywood will be installed, along with a new fastener.  He stated that the installation will be very similar to the roof job done on the Schnaidt house, only metal will be used instead of shingles.  Mr. Burriss questioned how wide the plywood would be.  Mr. Leavell stated three to four foot of plywood.  Mr. Ryan asked if the front porch will also be done.  Mr. Leavell stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he typically votes against this type of thing because he likes the look of the box gutters and he likes to see them salvaged when at all possible.  Mr. Leavell stated that the home is a vinyl house that has had the slate removed over twenty years ago, and the box gutters haven’t worked since he has lived there for nineteen years.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he likes the look of the proposed roof.  Mr. Leavell questioned why there is any architectural reason for the box gutters to remain.  Mr. Burriss asked if the clean hipped roof will be altered.  Mr. Leavell stated yes.  Mr. Burriss wondered if this would look like a collared metal roof .  Mr. Ryan stated that the area of the roof Mr. Burriss is referring to will not be very visible.  Mr. Burriss stated that he does not have an issue with the newly proposed gutters because it will add a detail that is missing since the siding was installed.  He went on to say that he is not sure about the proposed break in the metal.  Mr. Leavell stated that the home will look much better than it currently does.  Mr. Leavell stated that he does not think the break will be visible and the roofer did not feel it would be visible.  Mr. Leavell stated that the metal roof seems like the most creative solution for his home, given the condition of the old roof and the water leakage.  Mr. Burriss stated that he wished he knew how far the bridge piece would go.  Mr. Burriss asked the proposed slope of the collar.  Mr. Leavell guessed what the slope might look like.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he respects Mr. Burriss’ opinion architecturally and the Planning Commission has approved less attractive alternatives.  Mr. Burriss asked if the valleys on the roof will be detailed.  Mr. Leavell stated yes, and the company has accessories for the valleys in their brochure.  He stated that he really does not know the exact detailing.  Mr. Burriss suggested having the Village staff review the ridge cap detailing prior to the installation of the roof.  Mr. Burriss stated that as a point of clarification the applicant is not proposing the use of a square gutter, but rather a ‘k’ gutter.  Mr. Leavell stated that this is similar to what would be put on the home.  Ms. Terry stated that she had asked the roofer for information on the gutters and a ‘squarer’ was the language he used to describe the gutters. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-39:

 

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. Burriss stated that metal roofs were in general usage before asphalt shingle and the proposed roof could be considered a more historic use of material. 

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

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is protecting and enhancing an historic structure. 

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing a metal roof in ‘Charcoal Gray’. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-39 with the following conditions:

1)  The proposed gutters be the same as ‘Exhibit A’ depicting ‘k’ gutters; and

2) Village staff review the look of the proposed ridge caps prior to installation.

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-39 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

454 South Main Street – Granville Thrift Store - Application #09-40

CSD (Community Service District)

The request is for approval of a new wall sign.

                                                             

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-40:

No one was present to represent the Granville Thrift Store.

Ms. Terry explained that the applicant has contracted with Mr. Greenwood to construct the sign.  She went on to say that Fred Abraham, landlord,  has requested that the sign be located further up on the building and mounted from the top of the building, rather than being mounted to the stone.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign would look better above the wood arches as requested by Mr. Abraham.  Mr. Burriss agreed and he stated that he would want the location specified since they don’t have the proposed location in their submittal.

Mr. Ryan asked if all of the requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-40 with the following conditions:

1)      The sign is to be centrally located between the keystone and cap; and

2)      The existing wall sign is eliminated.

  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-40 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

 

126 East Elm Street – Eileen Arant/Broadway Pub – Application #09-41

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a wall sign.

 

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

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-41:

Eileen Arant, Bryn Du Drive, stated that she would like to replace the existing sign with a new sign.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the Planning Commission recently approved a new handrail and he asked when the temporary one will be removed and the new one installed.  Ms. Arant stated that the contractor has been waiting for dry conditions to install the new railing.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this looks like a pretty straightforward application.  Mr. Ryan clarified that the lighting will not be modified. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-41:

 

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. Burriss indicated that the new sign has a higher level of detail compared to the existing sign.  

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the new sign is historically significant.     

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed sign is historically appropriate for the building.

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing a poly-metal sign.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-41 as submitted with the clarification that the current lighting of the sign will not be modified.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-41 is approved as submitted.

 

204 East College Street – John and Meg Paolacci– Application #09-42

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to replace the existing asbestos tile

(T-Lock) roof on the main house with Owens Corning Berkshire, slate-look, asphalt

shingles in a “Dover Mist” color.                                                

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-42:

Meg Paolacci, 204 East College Street, stated that the proposed new roof will make the rear roof look like it all goes together consistently.  She clarified that the rear roof will not be replaced.  Mrs. Paolacci stated that wind damage from the September storm and December ice storm did some minor damage to the rear roof and some repairs will need to be done in that area.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he is ok with the application as proposed.  Mr. Burriss agreed.  Mr. Ryan asked if each Commission member is ok with part of the roof on the structure being replaced and part not.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the structure is large and he is comfortable with the application as proposed by the applicant.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-42:

 

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.  Mr. Burriss stated that the new roof is historically accurate for the structure. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss indicated that the proposed roof is historically appropriate for the home.  

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing replacing the existing roof with Owens Corning Berkshire Dover Mist slate-like shingles.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-42 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-42 is approved as submitted.

 

Other Business:

Work Session with Michael Carey – 332 North Granger Street

Mr. Carey asked for the Planning Commission’s guidance regarding a garage/carriage house for the rear of his home.  He indicated that he has received a variance from the BZBA for the setbacks.  Joe Hickman was present and he stated that he does have concerns of the interpretation of a story and a half, as well as building massing.  Mr. Carey stated that he looked up the definition of a story and a half and it states that it does have usable living space and there are typically windows for lighting.  Mr. Carey indicated that Mr. Hickman has indicated that he would not like windows on the side facing his property.  Mr. Hickman stated that there are not any carriage houses in the neighborhood and the applicant is actually replacing an existing garage.  He provided an example of a garage at 313 N. Granger Street, a garage on the McCoy’s property, and a garage on Spellman Street.  Mr. Carey indicated that the structure does not have to be referred to as a carriage house as far as he is concerned.  He also stated that the plans he would like to submit to the Planning Commission are really very similar to his neighbor’s garage (Jason Gay) which is an example submitted by Mr. Hickman.  Mr. Carey indicated that he would like the structure referred to as a story and a half and he believes the definition of a story and a half provides livable space on the second story.  Mr. Hickman indicated that he is cautious about the “usable space,” specifically regarding building massing and height.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission should review the Code guidelines.  Mr. Carey stated that these guidelines can be considered to be rather ambiguous.  Mr. Hickman indicated that his concerns are the usability of the space on the upper level.  Mr. Ryan questioned what the second floor would be used for.  Mr. Carey stated that he would like to have a woodworking shop on the second floor.  Ms. Terry indicated that the neighbor’s - The McCoy’s - came in and stated that they do have concerns regarding building massing.  Ms. Terry stated that The McCoy’s preferred the third option the most (Option D), but they still felt it was too tall and could be lowered.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #09-29 (AMENDED):

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby approves Application #09-29 as submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-29.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

New Business:

Application #09-39:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby approves Application #09-39 with the following conditions:

1)  The proposed gutters be the same as ‘Exhibit A’ depicting “k” gutters; and

2) Village staff review the look of the proposed ridge caps prior to installation.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-39.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-40:

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 #09-40 with the following conditions:

3)      The sign is to be centrally located between the keystone and cap; and

4)      The existing wall sign is eliminated.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-40.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-41:

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 #09-41 with the clarification that the current lighting of the sign will not be modified.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-41.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss   

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-42:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159 Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby approves Application #09-42 as submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-42.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

Approval to excuse absent Planning Commission members:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to excuse Gina Reeves and Lyle McClow from the Planning Commission meeting on May 11, 2009.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  8:50 PM

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.  

 

Next meetings:

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

June 8, 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.