Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes October 12, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 12, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry; Assistant Law Director, Mike King.

Visitors Present: Sharon Sellito, Todd Feil, Tim Hughes, Debi Hartfield, Douglas Hoyt, Scott and Martha Keyes, Sam Sagaria, James Crates, Greg Wasiloff, Mike and Wendy Duffey, Brian Miller, Eleanor Cohen, John Noblick, Chip Gordon, John Cassell, Bryon Reed, Herach Nazarian, Jurgen Pape, and Dennis Cauchon.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

Application #2010-126, submitted by Terra Nova Partners, LLC. for the property located at 384 East Broadway.  The applicant is requesting a zoning amendment within the Village Business District zoning classification which would expand the existing Conditional Use section "E. Single family residential." to read "E. Single family, two-family and multi-family residential uses."  If the proposed amendment is approved, two-family and multi-family residential uses would be permitted as Conditional Uses within the Village Business District (VBD).  This property located at 384 East Broadway is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD), however, the requested zoning amendment would affect all properties within the Village Business District (VBD) zoning category. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to remove Application #2010-126 from the Table.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Original Motion: That Application #2010-126 requesting an amendment to the zoning be recommended for approval to the Village Council (Motion by Steven Hawk); (Second by Jack Burriss).

 

Mr. Mitchell indicated that he would like to revise the motion as it currently stands.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion To amend the original motion with the following language: “That language be added to the end of Item (b) Conditional Uses, (2) Village Business District, (E) Single family, two-family and multi-family residential uses, as follows:

Two-family and multi-family residential uses may be allowed within the Core Business District only on the upper floors of structures and only when the first floor of the same structure is designated for a commercial use.   For the purposes of this conditional use, the Core Business District area is defined as:

1.         East Broadway, on the north and south sides, from Main Street to Pearl Street;

2.         North and South Prospect Streets, on the west and east sides, from College Street to Elm Street; and

3.         South Main Street from Broadway to Elm Street.

 

The motion was seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Johnson arrived at 7:07 PM. 

 

Mr. Hawk stated that this amendment would require that a structure have commercial use on the first floor if it were to ever be destroyed.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he sees the grandfathering issue of particular uses as a separate matter that Council would need to create a separate Ordinance for.  He stated that he thinks grandfathered uses should be allowed in the Code to still exist if they were ever destroyed.  Mr. Mitchell explained that this amendment would not allow a business that was destroyed in the core business district to be completely used as a multi-family dwelling.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the business district boundaries are being redefined.  Mr. Mitchell stated no.  Mr. Ryan stated that Mr. Mitchell’s amendment says that in certain areas of the business district a residential conditional use request would not be allowed on the first floor, while in other areas it could be. He asked the Assistant Law Director to clarify whether this would constitute spot zoning?  Assistant Law Director King stated no and that the research they found shows that they would have to have singled out a small individual lot to constitute spot zoning.  Mr. Burriss stated that they would be breaking down areas of the Village Business District and does this mean that anything outside of the core business district would not have multi-family use listed as a ‘Conditional Use’.  Mr. King stated that Mr. Mitchell’s amendment would still allow multi-family use to be listed as a ‘Conditional Use’ in areas outside of the core business district.  He stated that within the core business district the first floor would be committed to commercial use.  Mr. Burriss stated that they would in essence be defining an area in the core business district where multi-family or two family dwellings would be allowed, but he wants to ensure that they are not limiting areas outside the core area to prohibit multi-family and two-family uses.  Mr. King stated that the amendment does not have this distinction.  Mr. Johnson questioned if there is a need to clarify “outside of the core business district.”  Mr. King stated that it depends if you wanted more clarification, and he has not seen anything that suggests that this is an issue.  Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Commission wants to ensure that they are clear to Council as to their intent of the amendment to the motion.  He stated that the area known as the core business district would be the only area that would require a first floor commercial use. 

 

Roll Call Vote on the amendment to the original motion for Application #2010-126:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (no), Johnson (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-2.

 

Roll Call Vote on Application #2010-126 as Amended:  Johnson (yes), Hawk (no), Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-2. 

New Business:

215 South Cherry Street – Sharon Sellitto - Application #2010-145

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a wooden, scalloped, white picket fence along the western rear property line.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Sharon Sellitto.

 

Discussion:

Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street, stated that she would like to install more of the same fencing that she already has in the rear yard because the new owners of the neighboring property want to take down the existing chain link fence.  Ms. Sellitto explained that there is no change to the fence that already exists and she will match the existing fence.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing any gates in the fence.  Ms. Sellitto stated no.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-145:

 

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 new fence is an upgrade from a chain link fence.  

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 is an upgrade to the historical character.

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 and what was previously in place.

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-145 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

335 West Elm Street – Michael and Wendy Duffey - Application #2010-146

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

The request is for review and approval of the demolition of a one car detached garage located in the rear yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Greg Wasiloff and Michael and Wendy Duffey.

 

Discussion:

Michael Duffey, 335 West Elm Street, indicated that they are requesting demolition of the existing garage and they found nothing of historical significance when researching the history of the garage.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the Village would not be negatively impacted from losing this structure.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Demolition Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-146:

 

a)         The location of the proposed structure will not create adverse affects on the property or on neighboring properties.  The removal of the structure shall not interrupt the continuous built edge of any adjacent street or right of way.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the removal of the structure would not have any adverse affects on the property or neighboring properties. 

 

b)         The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed structure for demolition had no historical significance. 

 

c)         The demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the neighboring properties or community in general.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

d)         The proposed future construction plans for the demolished area meet the zoning requirements of the zoning district and area consistent with the existing structures, sizes, densities, and development styles of the surrounding areas, and that an implementation schedule is submitted and committed to by the applicant.  (Refer to Zoning Permit Application #2010-147 for the review of a new one and a half story detached garage.)

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to recommend approval of Demolition for Application #2010-146 to the Village Council.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

335 West Elm Street – Michael and Wendy Duffey - Application #2010-147

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a new two-car detached garage to be located in the rear yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Greg Wasiloff and Michael and Wendy Duffey.

 

Discussion:

Michael Duffey, 335 West Elm Street, stated that their yard is terraced and there is a steep drop off.  He stated that from the front of the house the proposed garage will appear to be a one-story garage, but it is actually a two-story garage.  He explained that the appearance would be minimal from the house view.  Mr. Duffey stated that the height will be 21 feet high at the ridgeline and you will be able to see that it is a two-story garage from the alley.  Mr. Hawk asked how the storage area would be accessed.  Mr. Duffey stated that they would put in an internal staircase that will turn and rise to the second story.  Mr. Hawk asked if the floor would be concrete.  Mr. Duffey stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the sewer line goes under the garage.  Mr. Duffey stated that he thought it was to the side of the existing garage.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the sewer lines goes under the neighbor’s garage (to the south) and the sewer line in that area is in a very unusual location.  He went on to say that he thinks it could be located under the new garage.  Ms. Terry stated that this may be something that the applicant looks at having moved prior to building the new garage.  Mr. Burriss commented that the proposed door on the east doesn’t seem to match the proposed front door.  Mr. Duffey stated that they chose this particular side door because of weather issues on that side of the home, financial reasons, and because the door won’t be seen.  Mr. Johnson asked if the back cement block wall would be water proofed.  Mr. Wasiloff stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the downspout on the left of the alley would turn back to the east.  Mr. Wasiloff stated yes.  Mr. Burriss questioned the double hung window next to the proposed door on the west side.  Mr. Duffey stated that they wanted tri-light tops.  He stated that they could consider looking at matching the door to this window.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would prefer to see the applicant create similarity in the window and door given that they have spent so much time and energy in architectural review.  He stated that he would like to see consistency.  Mr. Duffey stated that this is a good suggestion and he will do this.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if there have been any comments regarding the application from the neighbors.  Ms. Terry stated no.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-147:

 

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 proposal is consistent with other structures approved in this area.

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 level of detailing by the applicant contributes 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. Burriss stated that the proposed garage is more architecturally appealing than the structure that it is replacing. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2010-147 with changes to the east elevation window and door as depicted in ‘Exhibit A.’  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

418 West Broadway – Scott and Martha Keyes - Application #2010-148

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of conversion of a gravel driveway to a concrete driveway. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and John Noblick.

 

Discussion:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Construction, stated that he is representing the homeowner as the contractor for the proposed project.  He stated that they are requesting to change a gravel driveway to concrete.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant’s request does require a variance from the BZBA.  She stated that the Code requirement says that a driveway should not come within five feet of the property line and the proposed driveway is located one foot from the property line.  Mr. Noblick stated that the one foot is at the closest point up near the street.  Mr. Johnson asked if saw cut joints would be used.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.   Mr. Johnson asked if the driveway would be flush at the approach.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the contractor will have to do a fair amount of excavating.  Mr. Noblick stated that he didn’t believe so because it’s a fairly level lot. Mr. Mitchell stated that this is a good question to ask because they wouldn’t want to see anything done that could create a problem for the neighboring properties and this is gravel moving to an impervious structure.  Mr. Noblick stated that there would not be a significant amount of water that they will be dealing with and there is landscaping nearby and the property raises as it goes back.  Mr. Johnson stated that he thinks the contractor will have to dig it down to flush out.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is a sandstone walkway that may need to be cleared out.  He questioned if curb detailing can be done to encourage the movement of water to the street and not towards the neighbor.  Mr. Noblick stated that the sidewalk in this area was replaced and there has been a widened curb cut put in.  Mr. Burriss stated that the ariel view of the neighbor’s downspouts depict that their water is draining on the surface and the applicant’s house shows all of the water being taken away from the house underground.  He questioned that if the surface drainage isn’t a problem for that neighbor, then the driveway run-off most likely won’t be an issue. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-148 with the condition the applicant receive a variance from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

 

 

 

575 West Broadway – Todd and Robin Feil - Application #2010-151

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

(The AROD Criteria applies because the expansion is more than twenty (20%) of the gross livable area of the structure.)

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

1)         Construction of a new two-car attached garage to be located on the eastern side of the home;

2)         Expansion of basement in rear of home;

3)         Screened porch addition on the rear of the home, above the expanded basement;          and

4)         New deck on the rear of the home, above the expanded basement. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Todd Feil.

 

Discussion:

Todd Feil, 575 West Broadway, stated that they went through the BZBA for approval for the required variances.  He stated that their lot is narrow and the area just behind the house slopes down drastically to the rear of their property.  He stated that they want to install a French drain on the side where the garage will be located and drain the roof to this area.  Mr. Johnson asked if the drain would be within a foot from the surface.  Mr. Feil stated yes.  He went on to say that they want the driveway to slope away from the house for water drainage.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant is proposing standing seam metal roofing.  Mr. Feil stated that they will add a standing seam metal roof and he was unsure if it will be screwed down or a true standing metal seam.  Mr. Burriss stated that on the south elevation or rear elevation – there are two windows and a basement door.  He asked if those are new or are they being covered up.  Mr. Feil stated that their builder drew these in the wrong way and they will be added to the structure.  Mr. Johnson asked if the existing block retaining wall would stay.  Mr. Field stated that it would be excavated and replaced.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant is adding on to the basement.  Mr. Feil stated yes and that the add-on will not be heated, it is a glorified potting shed.  Mr. Johnson asked about the right rear elevation down spouting and what will be done with it?  Mr. Feil stated that they would be replacing all of the gutters on the house and this rear right drain will daylight drain on top of the garage.  Mr. Johnson stated that on the east and west elevation of the garage there are no gutters depicted.  Mr. Feil stated that these would be added if they find they are needed.  Mr. Johnson asked what would happen to the water near the screened in porch?  Mr. Feil stated that if you look at the west gutter, it breaks to the right and continues to the end of the screened in porch.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the applicant tried to match the existing slope on the house.  Mr. Feil stated that they did as much as they could without having to excavate too deeply.  He explained that the slope is like it is because of where they are starting the garage.  Mr. Burriss commented that the hip roof is reminiscent of what is on the porch.  Mr. Burriss stated that he wondered about the exposed glazed ceramic block that is unique to the home.  Mr. Feil stated that if it still existed they would try to match it with the new garage, but it's unlikely that they will find this type of glazed block tile.  He stated that it is their intent to cover the cement block with vines.

Mr. Burriss suggested that the cement block should at least match the color of the glazed block foundation on the home because it is a strong distinct feature of the house.  He stated that the applicant could consider a concrete dye.  Mr. Burriss also questioned the number of division panels on the garage door.  Mr. Feil stated that they are not sure right now what this will be and he would prefer to see less divisions.  Mr. Ryan questioned if much of the original foundation block would be showing.  Mr. Burriss stated yes to the west and east.  Mr. Mitchell stated that from the street one wouldn't see much because other homes are so close.  Mr. Hawk asked if there have been any comments from neighboring properties.  Ms. Terry stated no. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-151:

 

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 structure is consistent with other structures approved in the same 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 structure uses historically appropriate materials in 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. Burriss stated that some of the proposed work on the main house is more appropriate appearance wise than what is currently in place. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-151 with the condition that the applicant matches the proposed foundation concrete block to the existing foundation color on the home.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

316 West Elm Street – Douglas and Maria Hoyt - Application #2010-152

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

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

1)         Front porch:  Replace the existing charcoal roof with a standing seam metal roof; and

2)         Northern elevation, rear window:  Removal of single pane window and replacement with three colonial style Anderson 200 Series double hung windows with interior grids.  Replace trim around windows to match existing trim.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Douglas Hoyt.

 

Discussion:

Douglas Hoyt, 316 West Elm Street, stated that they would like to take out the smaller window and put in a big window so they can see in their back yard.  He stated that they have chosen a colonial window to match the rest of the house and he will match the existing trim on the home.  Mr. Hoyt stated that they are proposing a standing seam screwed down metal roof in charcoal gray.  Mr. Hoyt also stated that he would be taking out the electrical box used for knob and tube wiring. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-152:

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 proposal is consistent with other new and renovated structures 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 proposal is historically accurate.

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. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-152 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

327 West Maple Street – Debi Hartfield - Application #2010-153

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

The request is for architectural review and approval, for the rear accessory structure, of the following:

1)         Siding:  Removing stucco and replacing with engineered wood siding on the second & third stories; and

2)         Window trim: Changing the window trim on the south, east and west sides.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Debi Hartfield.

 

Discussion:

Debi Hartfield, 327 West Maple Street, stated that there is no side on this accessory structure that matches and all of the sides are different.  She stated that she would like to bring the structure back to something more beautiful.  She stated that she will eventually pull off the asbestos siding on the primary structure to expose the lap siding underneath and the siding she is proposing for the accessory structure would be more congruent with the primary structure.  Ms. Hartfield stated that the house just needs someone to love it and bring it back – restore it.  She stated that she is proposing a material that is durable, but won’t break the bank.  Mr. Burriss questioned which direction the applicant is proposing hanging the siding.  Ms. Hartfield stated horizontally because the primary structure’s siding underneath is horizontal.  Mr. Burriss asked what the applicant is proposing to use for the corner trim.  Ms. Hartfield stated painted cedar would be used for the corners and the trim around the garage door, which may also need to be repaired.  Ms. Hartfield stated that the entire structure would get painted yellow and soft ivory trim.  Some of the stucco will be removed and some areas will have the siding wrapped over it.  Ms. Hartfield stated that the south side stucco on the accessory structure is in good shape and she will leave this as is.   She explained that they will put house wrap around the structure and the siding will be on top.  Mr. Johnson asked what the applicant is proposing to do with the depth they will be adding where they are and are not removing stucco.  He was concerned with the depth of siding in relation to the existing windows.  Ms. Hartfield stated that this will be filled in behind the house wrap and siding.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the windows would be replaced.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes with JELD-WEN windows.  Mr. Burriss asked if the stovepipe would remain? Ms. Hartfield stated no it will be removed.  Mr. Burriss questioned the proposed curved top of the windows and the reason this was chose.  Ms. Hartfield stated that she wanted a softer, wider, and elongated look.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant is proposing any exterior lighting.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that the applicant choose their lighting and bring this back for the Planning Commission to review.  He questioned if the application should be tabled because they really need additional information for review.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is not familiar with the type of siding material proposed by the applicant.  He questioned if it is a type of plywood or T111.  Ms. Hartfield stated that it imitates lap siding nicely and it essentially is a type of plywood or T111.  She stated that it has a fifty-year warranty.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the warranty would be in affect if it has stucco and lathe behind it.  He stated that the applicant may want to check into this.  He also questioned if it can be applied easily and securely with the lathe underneath.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the product appears to be only 3/8 inches thick.  Mr. Ryan suggested that the applicant provide a sample of the material for the Planning Commission to review.  He stated that they are fully in favor of this structure being renovated, but there is not enough clarity and documentation on approving the application with what they have in front of them.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have required this type of information from other applicants with similar proposals.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to see a sample of the proposed material and he would not be in favor of anything resembling T111.  He questioned what the applicant had in mind for the trim – specifically for the trim around the door.  Ms. Hartfield stated that this will remain as is, but she may need to replace the deteriorated wood with the same look.  She stated that the front of the structure has zero windows.

 

Mr. Mitchell stated that the applicant had provided two examples for the trim.  Ms. Hartfield stated that she prefers the look of the second option she presented.  Ms. Hartfield stated that the windows will be flush with the frame and sloped to prevent water settling on them.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing that the ends of the piece to the window trim be sloped?  He stated that he is not sure how he feels on significantly changing the lintel of the window.  Mr. Ryan stated that he doesn’t have a significant problem with it.  Mr. Mitchell agreed that the trim would have to be replaced because the existing is deteriorating.  Mr. Johnson agreed that the application overall is a bit difficult to interpret without all of the details in place and he suggests tabling the application.  Mr. Johnson stated that given what they have in front of them, the horizontal trim seems more appropriate for the house.  He stated that it is a tall structure from that elevation.  Mr. Burriss stated that he could be talked into changing the window trim, but he would like to see this illustrated on the proposed overall elevation.     

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #2010-153.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

339 East Maple Street – James Crates - Application #2010-154

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a porch roof over an existing porch on the eastern side of the home. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

James Crates, 327 West Maple Street, stated that this existing porch is almost impassible with snow on it, so he would like to add a roof.  He stated that this proposal is architecturally consistent with the roof on the west side.  Mr. Crates stated that he is proposing a standing seam metal roof and he would eventually like to replace all of the porch roofs with the same metal roofing.  Mr. Crates stated that the addition would be painted to match other porches with six by six-fluted posts.  Mr. Burriss asked the proposed width of the new roof.  Mr. Crates stated that it is going the length of the whole bay and will go the length from the corner to the end corner so it also covers the air conditioning compressor.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the roof will impede the existing window.  Mr. Crates stated that the contractor has indicated that this window will not be impacted. Mr. Johnson asked if there would be any fascia and gutter.  Mr. Crates stated yes and the gutter will run into a rain barrel.  Mr. Burriss stated that the other two porches have multiple columns and he questioned what supports the new roof.  Mr. Crates stated that as you face westward the southern support will butt against the existing 4x4 and the header will be 2x6 with 2x6 stringers.  Mr. Crates guessed that the roof would be twelve foot long.  Mr. Johnson asked if the roof would stop at the porch.  Mr. Crates stated yes.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the posts for support should match other supports on the other porches.  He suggested the use of detailed fencing to cover trash bins.  Mr. Crates stated that this would be a relatively inexpensive addition and he would agree to match this. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-154:

 

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 improvement is consistent with other approvals 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 detailing of the proposed changes are historically accurate.

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 stated that a covered porch is more historically appropriate for this structure than an open deck.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-154 with the modifications per ‘Exhibit A.’  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2010-126: Terra Nova Homes; Zoning Amendment

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, Amendments.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-126. 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Hawk (no), Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-2.

 

New Business:

Application #2010-145: Sharon Sellito; Fencing

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, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1187 Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-145 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-145.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-146: Michael and Wendy Duffey; Structural Demolition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1162, Structural Demolition, and hereby recommends approval of Application #2010-146 to the Village Council, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-146.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-147: Michael and Wendy Duffey; New Garage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157 General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-147 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-147.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-148: Scott and Martha Keyes; Driveway

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, Chapter 1176, Transportation  Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-148 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-148.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-151: Todd and Robin Feil; Addition, Screened Porch, Deck

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 approval of Application #2010-151 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-151.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

Application #2010-152: Douglas and Maria Hoyt; 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, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-152 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-152.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-154: James Crates; Exterior Modification

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-154 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-154.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the September 27, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0.    

 

Adjournment:  9:30 PM

Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

Monday, November 8, 2010

Monday, November 22, 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.