Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 24, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair), Jack Burriss, and Jeremy Johnson.

Members Absent: Tim Ryan and Councilmember O’Keefe.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Travis Ketron, Philip and Charlene Ward, Melissa Hilton, Thomas Foster, Sohrab Behdad, and Scott Walker. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

New Business:

239 West Broadway – Philip and Charlene Ward - Application #2010-73

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to replace the existing slate roof on the front of the home with Owens Corning asphaltic dimensional shingles in Estate Gray. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Philip Ward. 

Discussion:

Philip Ward, 239 West Broadway, stated that he would like to replace the front roof because of damage that occurred from ice dams this winter.  He indicated that the front gutter was pulled off the front of the house and the existing slate roofing was damaged.  Mr. Ward stated that they have determined that the cost to replace the slate is very expensive and it would be cheaper to replace the entire front of the roof with shingles in Estate Gray.  Mr. Ward stated that the cost to replace two rows of slate is the same as replacing the entire front of the roof with dimensional shingles.  He stated that there is a total of fifteen rows of slate that needs to be replaced.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the rest of the roof on the home is shingled.  Mr. Ward stated that about 2/3 of the rest of the roof is shingled and the rest is a mixture of rubber and slate.  He indicated that the small roof on the western side is still slate.  Mr. Johnson asked if the roof sub-structure is slat or sheeting.  Mr. Ward stated that there is currently slat roofing in the area is he proposing to change and the roofer will pull this off and put on sheeting material.  Mr. Burriss stated that years ago there was a fire on the second floor of this home and at that time the homeowner was given approval to replace the back slate roof with shingles.  Mr. Ward concurred and stated that they have since had to replace some of that material installed after the fire because of evident leaks.  Mr. Johnson stated that he asked the materials being used because he would be concerned if there were two different fascia depths.  Mr. Johnson and Mr. Mitchell agreed that the fascia depths are probably not level now.  Mr. Burriss asked if the vented cap roof is covered by shingles.  Mr. Ward stated yes. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-73: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with shingles approved in this 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 proposed enhancements create similar roofing material throughout the home.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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 #2010-73 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

218 East Maple Street – Ketron Custom Builders/Jim and Jodi Schmidt - Application #2010-75

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of remodeling of the front porch, putting in new posts, railing and flooring, and building a new stone retaining wall along the front sidewalk.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Travis Ketron. 

Discussion:

Travis Ketron, Ketron Custom Builders, 3611 Deeds Road, stated that he is representing the homeowner and is the contractor for the proposed project.  Mr. Ketron stated that they would like to revamp the cosmetic features of the porch and install a retaining wall.  Mr. Ketron stated that they would be widening up the beam structure and removing the Tuscan columns and replacing them with turned wood spindles.  He stated that based on his research of the home he has found it to be built somewhere around 1915-1916 and the neighbors state somewhere around 1900.  Mr. Ketron stated that this time period would put the house in the Folk Victorian period, which includes some of the Victorian details but scaled down.  Mr. Mitchell asked if there would be any trim where the beam is being located at the top of the columns.  Mr. Ketron stated no and that there is not any evidence that trim was ever there.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the stone retaining wall will look like sandstone.  Mr. Ketron stated yes.  Mr. Ketron presented an example of the baluster and porch floor that they are proposing to use.  Mr. Burriss asked the reason for the entry elevation.  Mr. Ketron stated that they are moving the stairs over because they are currently not aesthetically pleasing.  Mr. Ketron indicated that the client will rework the brick pavers to accommodate this.  Mr. Burriss asked if the gutters and downspouts will remain as is.  Mr. Ketron stated yes.  Mr. Ketron showed the proposed detailing for below the porch floor.  Mr. Ketron stated 1x3 strips will be used as a varmint guard.  Mr. Burriss clarified that the applicant is not proposing to use wire mesh.  Mr. Ketron stated that they would be using wood only and would leave just enough room between the vertical boards for the porch to breathe.  Mr. Burriss asked if the detailing below the porch will have a framed appearance when done.  Mr. Ketron stated that they have done this in both fashions – with and without a border.  He indicated that in this example, he is not proposing to frame it out on the bottom.  Mr. Burriss asked the profile of the top handrail.  Mr. Ketron stated that it will have a very simple look that allows the water to shed off.  He also presented an example of the railing.  Mr. Burriss commended the applicant on their restoration efforts with providing more accurate detailing.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he was having some difficulty picturing what the porch would look like below.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have had applicants request to put lattice in this area.  Mr. Ketron stated that he has not worked with any architects that call for the use of lattice and he doesn’t find it to be aesthetically pleasing.  He explained that the 1x3 vertical strips he is proposing will have a reveal and that the bottom rail that they attach to will not be seen.  Mr. Mitchell asked if he will use treated lumber for this.  Mr. Ketron stated no because it won’t hold the paint as well as cedar.  Mr. Johnson asked if the proposed retaining wall will come to the sidewalk.  Mr. Ketron stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the stones will be stacked.  Mr. Ketron stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if there will be returns on the ends.  Mr. Ketron stated yes and they would be grade dependent, but he would like to get them back to the top of the stairs.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have in the past required that retaining walls be placed back far enough to allow for the replacement of the sidewalk if need be.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant will use a packed stone foundation for the retaining wall.  Mr. Ketron stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the wall would be thirty six (36”) inches high from the sidewalk.  Mr. Ketron stated that it would be that high at its highest point and it would not exceed thirty six (36”) inches high, and they hope to be around twenty-four (24”) and thirty-two (32”) inches.  Mr. Johnson inquired as to how the geograde is tied to the stone.  Mr. Ketron explained that they would be laying a mesh that will hold dirt and it’s held in place by the weight of the ground & stones.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-75: 

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 changes are a restoration to the home and this 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 proposed improvements are an upgrade.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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 #2010-75 with the condition that the base of the proposed retaining wall be held a minimum of nine inches (9”) from the edge of the sidewalk.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

115 North Prospect Street – Greenlee Hilton Insurance  - Application #2010-76

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a window/door sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Melissa Hilton. 

Discussion:

Melissa Hilton, 776 Westwood Drive, stated that she would like to place the sign on the door of her business so it is clearer as to what her business is.  Mr. Mitchell asked why the application requires a Variance.  Ms. Terry stated that the signage exceeds the 15% maximum allotment for a single window sign.  Mr. Burriss clarified that the applicant doesn’t want to place any additional signage on other windows.  Ms. Hilton stated that there is not any signage there, nor does she ever want there to be any.  Ms. Hilton stated that she is not in favor of the sandwich board signs that people use and she thinks that the proposal before the Planning Commission for a window/door sign is the most appropriate type of signage for her store front.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the other window area could be considered in the percentage so there wouldn’t have to be a Variance.  Ms. Terry stated that they can only consider the door area and it is separated from the front window and not used in the calculation.  

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-76: 

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 TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the division of the front window and door is a special circumstance and the window in the front cannot have signage on it. 

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 that this does not apply.  Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant is in need of the sign to inform the public of what the business is. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that the proposed 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.  

(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.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal by the applicant is the most favorable option presented to the Planning Commission.  

(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 that justice would be done in granting the Variance. 

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

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, it will not. 

  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 Planning Commission agreed that there were no special conditions or requirements.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-76: 

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 signage is consistent with other signage in the same zoning 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 proposed door signage is appropriate to the historical character in this zoning district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

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

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-76 with a Variance to increase the size of the window sign from 15% to 59% for a 5.8 square foot sign. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0.

338 North Pearl Street – Thomas Foster - Application #2010-77

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a six (6’) foot wood, board on board, fence. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Thomas Foster, and Sohrab Behdad. 

Discussion:

Thomas Foster, 338 North Pearl Street, stated that he would like to install a privacy fence around the back of his property.  He stated that the fence would be six foot (6’) tall, except for an area near the patio that would drop down to five foot (5’).  Mr. Foster explained that he has a neighboring garage that is on the property line and he would inset the fence so the neighbor has adequate access to the garage.  Mr. Foster went on to say that there would be a gate at the patio area on the south side, a double gate on the back, and a third gate near the car port on the north side of the property.  Mr. Burriss asked about fencing being applied along the back of the carport.  Mr. Foster stated that there will be enough room that the fence will run along existing flower beds and then step down to the patio.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant was aware that the finished side of the fence would have to face out to his neighbor.  Mr. Foster stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked how sharp the proposed dog ear fence is.  Mr. Foster stated that it is described as a treated dog-ear fence in the quote.  Mr. Burriss asked the proposed finish for the fence.  Mr. Foster stated that it would have to cure during the summer and he would apply a clear sealant with a natural finish.  Mr. Burriss asked the width of the boards.  Mr. Foster stated one by six.  Mr. Burriss asked if the top of the gates are also dog eared.  Mr. Foster stated that the gates will be identical to the fence.  Mr. Foster also indicated that the large tree in the rear would be boxed in.  Mr. Burriss asked if the tree would be located within the fence.  Mr. Foster stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the retaining wall will be within the fence.  Mr. Foster stated yes.  

Sohrab Behdad, 530 Mill Race Road, stated that he and Mr. Foster have been good neighbors to each other and he appreciates him moving the fence back so he can get to the garage.  He stated that he owns the property located at 330 North Pearl Street.  Mr. Behdad stated that his question is what if the fence is not exactly located on the property line and he questions if it is really necessary for a six foot high fence.  Mr. Behdad explained that the other side of his property has a four foot picket fence and he does not feel that a six foot high fence is aesthetically pleasing.  Mr. Mitchell explained that the Planning Commission doesn’t have jurisdiction regarding someone’s survey and property lines and this would be considered to be a civil matter between the two parties.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the zoning code allows for a six foot fence in this zoning district and if he wants to arrange with his neighbor a different height – they can certainly do so.

Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Foster if he had given any consideration to lowering the fence.  Mr. Behdad also suggested that the fence would be more aesthetically pleasing by matching existing structures around the home.  Mr. Foster stated that a picket fence wouldn’t offer him the security and privacy he wants for his dog.  He went on to say that he wanted the six foot fence to help channel road noise between the houses.  Mr. Foster stated that the finish of the fence would not be good if it were to be painted because he lives in a shaded tree area where mold is prevalent and this would create a maintenance issue.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant had considered a pigmented stain.  He stated that he applauds the efforts made in restoration and maintenance to the home and a more finished fence would be more consistent with work done on the property and would not be so “unfinished looking.”  He added that the fencing will be clearly visible from the carport area in the front of the home.  Mr. Foster agreed that he would be willing to change the overall height of the fence to five feet and apply a pigmented stain on the fence within one year.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-77:

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 fence is consistent with other fencing approved for this 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 proposed fence with a pigmented stain is an upgrade to the district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-77 with the condition that the applicant install the fence to be five foot (5’) high and that the finish on the fence have a pigmented stain to be applied within one year. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

400 Ebaugh Drive – Scott Walker/Denison University - Application #2010-78

Institutional District (ID)

The request is for review and approval of the addition of athletic team rooms to the existing restroom facility.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Scott Walker. 

Discussion:

Scott Walker, 865 Franklin Avenue, Heath, Ohio, stated that he representing Denison University.  He stated that there is an existing restroom structure that they would like to add on to with painted split face masonry and a shingled roof.  Mr. Walker stated that they would like team rooms installed on each side of the restroom.  He stated that they are following LEED standards and the donor wants to make sure that the building is environmentally friendly with a metal roof and skylights to reduce reliance on electricity.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the setback criteria is met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-78 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-73: Philip and Charlene Ward; New Roof

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 #2010-73 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-73.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-75: Ketron Custom Builders/Jim and Jodi Schmidt; Exterior Modifications

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, Chapter 1187, Height Area and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-75 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-75.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-76: Greenlee Hilton Insurance; Window/Door Sign

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 and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-76 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-76.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-77: Thomas Foster; Fence

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 #2010-77 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-77.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-78: Scott Walker/Denison University; Addition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1169, Institutional District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-78 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-78.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

Approval of Absent Commissioner Member:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to excuse Tim Ryan from the Planning Commission meeting on May 24, 2010.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the April 26, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 3-0.  

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the May 10, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 3-0.  

Adjournment:  8:30 PM

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

Next meetings:

June 14, 2010 (Melanie Schott and Jack Burriss indicated that they cannot attend this meeting.)

June 28, 2010

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.