Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 26, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, Jeremy Johnson, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Robin Lantz, Christi Adamkosky, and Mark Clapsadle.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

 

317 West Elm Street – Jason & Christi Adamkosky - Application #09-96 (AMENDED)

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to amend the application for an

additional column to support the Porte Cochere. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Christi Adamkosky.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-96:

Christi Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street, stated that the contractor is requesting that one additional column be installed.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the support is structurally necessary and he stated that he was not certain the column affects the aesthetics.  Ms. Adamkosky indicated that the extra column would provide additional support.  Mr. Burriss stated that he could justify the installation of the column due to the space of the columns in the front of the structure.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-96:

 

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 applicant’s request for an additional column is consistent with other structures in the district.

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 applicant should be commended on their efforts to upgrade the historical character of the structure. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

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

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-96 as amended.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

 

46 Waterford Drive – Mark Clapsadle - Application #09-139

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a first floor and lower level

addition.  The application is before the Planning Commission because the proposed

addition is more than a twenty (20%) percent increase to the existing structure.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Mark Clapsadle.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-139:

Mark Clapsadle, 4380 Granview Road, stated that he is the architect for the project and is representing the homeowner, Virginia Abbott.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that the house is very lineal as it is now and it is a one-story gray horizontal home.  He went on to say the he wants to make the addition look compatible with the original home and everything will match identically.  Ms. Terry stated that the lot coverage, height, and setback requirements have been met.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the applicant will be adding a fireplace and will it be stone.  Mr. Clapsadle stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to complement the architect on the thoroughness of his application.  Mr. Ryan questioned why the Planning Commission is addressing this application given its location is not in the AROD.  Ms. Terry stated that the Code requires that any addition that is more than a 20% addition to the original structure requires Planning Commission approval, if located in the Suburban Residential District. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-139:

 

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 addition is consistent with other renovations approved in district and the proposed addition is consistent with the existing architecture as well.

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.

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 addition is consistent with the original structure it protects and enhances.

e)      Materials:

                              Roof: asphaltic dimensional shingles, gray, to match the existing;

                              Siding: 6” cedar, light gray, and manufactured stone, limestone –                                       buff gray, to match the existing;

                              Windows: aluminum clad casement, Andersen Terratone, to match                                           the existing;

                              Gutters: ogee gutters, light gray, to match the existing;

                              Fascia: 6”, light gray, to match the existing; and

                              Screened Porch: screens and 6x6 posts, painted.

h) Height:          The proposed building height at the front grade elevation is 13 feet, meeting the maximum 30 foot height requirement.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the home is a ranch style home.

i) Massing:       Mr. Burriss noted that the horizontality is kept throughout the addition and is consistent.

      j)   Roof Shape: The applicant is proposing a 6:12 roof pitch, with                                                          dimensional asphaltic shingles, consistent with the existing                                                  roof pitch and materials on the main structure. 

      k) Use of Details:

Roof: asphaltic dimensional shingles, gray, to match the existing;

                              Siding: 6” cedar, light gray, and manufactured stone, limestone –                                       buff gray, to match the existing;

                              Windows: aluminum clad casement, Andersen Terratone, to match                                           the existing;

                              Gutters: ogee gutters, light gray, to match the existing;

                              Fascia: 6”, light gray, to match the existing; and

                              Screened Porch: screens and 6x6 posts, painted.

 

The applicant is proposing a first floor and lower level addition as follows:

1)                    Front Yard Setback: 239’6” setback, to meet minimum 35 foot setback requirement;

2)                    Side Yard Setback: 285 foot setback, to meet minimum 14 foot setback requirement;

3)             Rear Yard Setback: 285 foot setback, to meet minimum 14 foot setback requirement;

4)             Maximum Building Lot Coverage: The existing lot is 232,083 square feet.  The existing and proposed house footprint is 6,639 square feet or 3% total lot coverage, to meet the maximum 15% coverage requirement; and

5)             Maximum Height: 13 feet total building height (at the front elevation), to meet the maximum 30 foot height requirement.             

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-139 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

454 South Main Street – Granville Thrift Shop – Application #09-140

Community Service District (CSD)

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

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Robin Lantz.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-140:

Robin Lantz, Granville Thrift Shop, stated that they would like to reuse the sign that was previously located on the front of their building.  Ms. Terry stated that this is the same sign they used to have next to the front door and the applicant wants to move it to the side door where they often have deliveries.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Terry stated that a variance is needed because the maximum number of signage per building is one.  Mr. Johnson asked if there is just one business at this location.  Ms. Lantz stated yes.  Mr. Burriss questioned the location of the sign and will it be next to the door.  Ms. Lantz stated that Fred Abraham, the landlord, would be hanging the sign on the building and he has only indicated that it will not be on the door.  Mr. Burriss noted that the location ought to be specified in the approval of the application.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-140:

 

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss noted that the public supplies the merchandise for this business and they utilize the side door.   

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that this is a service type business to the community.      

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.    Mr. Johnson noted that it is a 100% increase in what is allowed and he would consider the variance to be substantial.  Mr. Ryan stated that he agrees with Mr. Johnson, but it is in keeping with signage on that property as it exists.  Mr. Ryan stated that he doesn’t believe it is a substantial difference to the neighborhood.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the request for a variance is not substantial for this property.  Mr. Mitchell stated the variance is not substantial.  

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE. Mr. Burriss stated that the request is consistent with other signage in the neighborhood.    

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with          knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission      unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE. 

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated the spirit of the zoning Ordinance is not compromised by the approval of this variance.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE. 

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Commission agreed that there should be clarification as to where the sign will be located.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-140 with a variance to increase the maximum number of signs from one to two and for the proposed sign to be mounted no higher than the top of the doorway and to the right of the existing doorway.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-140 is approved as with the above stated conditions.

 

 

317 West Elm Street – Jason & Christi Adamkosky - Application #09-141

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a rear patio, seating wall

surrounding the patio, and concrete steps.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Christi Adamkosky.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-141:

Christi Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street, stated that they want to get rid of the existing mound of dirt in the rear yard and they will use this with the construction of the patio.  She stated that there will be a seating wall around the patio and they plan to use the same type of stone to match the foundation of the house.  Ms. Terry noted that the setbacks and lot coverage requirements have been met.  Mr. Johnson asked the approximate height of the seating wall.  Ms. Adamkosky stated that from the rear elevation it will be about four foot (4’) tall and there is a slope to the back yard.  Ms. Adamkosky went on to say that they eventually hope to tier the back yard with landscaping.  Mr. Johnson indicated that a building permit would be needed if footers were used.  Ms. Adamkosky agreed.  Ms. Terry stated that if modifications to the seating wall are made it may require Planning Commission review.  Mr. Mitchell stated that if the applicant uses interlocking block with a stone finish they would not need footers or Building Code Department approval.  Mr. Burriss asked if there was any consideration for entrance to the sides of the patio.  Ms. Adamkosky stated that the Porte cochere side could potentially have an outside fireplace in that area and this would be incorporated into the patio area.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-141:

 

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 application is consistent with other projects that have been approved in the Village.  

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 improvements add to the livability of a structure within the district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the improvements add to the vitality 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 proposal is part of a restoration of an existing historical home and it enhances and protects examples of physical surroundings in which past generations lived.

e)      Materials and Textures: The applicant is proposing a rear patio, seating wall surrounding the patio, and concrete steps.  The patio will be constructed of the following materials:

1)      Patio Surface: Concrete

2)      Exterior patio & seating wall surface: sandstone to match the existing foundation; and

3)      Steps: Concrete

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-141 with the condition that the stone facing on the patio walls match as closely as possible the foundation of the home. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business:

Application #09-96 (AMENDED): Jason & Christi Adamkosky

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 gives their recommendation of approval for the amended application.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for amended Application #09-96.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

Application #09-139: Mark Clapsadle

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their recommendation of approval of Application #09-139.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-139.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-140: Granville Thrift Shop

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, Signage, Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-140 with a variance.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-140.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-141: Jason & Christi Adamkosky

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 gives their approval of Application #09-141 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-141.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:50 PM

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Next meetings:

November 9, 2009

November 23, 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.