Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes April 11, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 11, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell and Steven Hawk.

Staff Present: Village Planning Director, Alison Terry; Assistant Law Director, Michael King; Planning & Zoning Assistant, Deb Walker.

Also Present: Maggie Sobataka, Ben and Nadine Rader, John Noblick, John and Patty Ricket, Roger Kessler, Deborah Barber, Dena McKinley, Todd and Robin Feil, David Schnaidt, Lisa McKivergin, Tony Beckerly, Eric Rosenberg, Mary Jane McDonald, Gill Miller, Bryon Reed, Herach Nazarian, Stephanie Kuntz, Steve Larson, James Hale, Rod Haynes, and Suzanne Kennedy.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

113 North Prospect Street – Maggie Sobataka - Application #2010-60 AMENDED

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

The request is for review and approval to temporarily relocate the sidewalk sign to the northeast corner of Broadway and Prospect Street. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Maggie Sobataka.

 

Discussion:

Maggie Sobataka, 113 North Prospect Street, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan stated that this matter was discussed during a work session at a previous Planning Commission meeting.  Mr. Ryan stated that he would have concern that there could be other businesses on Prospect Streets that would like to move their sidewalk signage to the corner.  Ms. Sobataka stated that this would be a temporary relocation of the signage and she has some signage ideas for alleviating the problem that would encompass all stores.  Mr. Burriss asked if the sign would be relocated for a six month period before the applicant proposes the new ideas.  Ms. Sobataka stated that she is still reviewing ideas and would like to have the sidewalk signage in place during the summer months.  She stated that when the road was previously closed and the sidewalk signage was moved she noticed an increase in foot traffic to her business.  She asked if the Planning Commission would be interested in her keeping track of this increase in numbers.  Mr. Ryan stated that although this would be interesting to know it would be hard to know if an increase in pedestrian traffic is due to something going on at the gallery or as a result of the sidewalk signage location.  Mr. Ryan asked if Ms. Sobataka has talked to other patrons on her street.  She stated yes and they didn’t have an opinion.  Mr. Ryan asked if there have been any complaints from Everest Gear.  Ms. Terry stated that she heard from them during the street closure.  Ms. Sobataka stated that Everest Gear has verbally expressed to her that business exposure is a problem due to signage.  Mr. Ryan stated that he will agree to vote yes on the application only because it is for a temporary period of time. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-60 AMENDED:

 

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 change in the location of the signage is stylistically compatible.

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 is proposing to change to the previously approved location for the signage, which is consistent with other similar signage in the same 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 from the business.

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 #2010-60 as AMENDED with the condition that the signage be removed from the corner location after a six-month period of time.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

122 East Broadway – Ben Rader - Application #2011-12

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

The request is architectural review and approval of a sidewalk café area.    

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Ben Rader

 

Discussion:

Ben Rader, 130 West Broadway, stated that the property in question is located at 122 East Broadway.  He stated that he would like to put in a sidewalk café area.  Mr. Ryan asked if there would be any signage on the umbrellas.  Mr. Rader stated no.  Mr. Johnson asked about the extension of the café to the real-estate office area.  Mr. Rader stated that he owns the building where the extension of the café would go.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-12:

 

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 change in the proposed café is consistent with other cafes approved in the district and stylistically compatible.

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 is proposing a café, which is consistent with other similar cafes in the same 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 cafe.

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 recommend approval of Application #2011-12 to Village Council.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

325 West Broadway – Mary Jane McDonald - Application #2011-13

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the change from a gravel driveway to an exposed aggregate concrete driveway. 

                       

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

 

Discussion:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Company, Newark, stated that the existing gravel driveway looks like exposed aggregate now and the proposed change really won’t look much different from what is currently in place.  Mr. Johnson asked if there will be excavation of what is there now.  Mr. Noblick stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-13:

 

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 driveway is consistent with other driveway approvals 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 applicant is proposing an upgrade in material, which is more consistent 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 driveway improvement.

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 of Application #2011-13.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

212 South Main Street – Patty Ricket/Curves - Application #2011-14

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

The request is for review and approval of a Change of Use from Category “D”, Food, Drug and Beverage Business to Category “H”, Fitness Related Businesses. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Patty Ricket. 

 

Discussion:

Patty Ricket, 736 Beaver Road SE, Hebron, Ohio 43025, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated that the proposed location of the business has more than sufficient parking.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the current location is in the Shurtz building.  Ms. Ricket stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked how many people she expects to frequent the business at one time.  Ms. Ricket stated that four people at once would be busy.  Mr. Ryan asked how many employees are employed by the business.  Mr. Ricket stated that it is a family operated business.  Mr. Johnson questioned if a particular number of parking spaces should be designated.  Mr. Burriss suggested five spaces.  Ms. Terry stated that the spaces wouldn’t have to be in a particular location on the property. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve of Application #2011-14 with the condition that five parking spaces be designated for the usage.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

212 South Main Street – Patty Ricket/Curves - Application #2011-15

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a freestanding tenant panel sign. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Patty Ricket. 

 

Discussion:

Patty Ricket, 736 Beaver Road SE, Hebron, Ohio 43025, indicated that she would like to place a sign up for her exercise business.  Ms. Terry explained that there were previous variances given at this location for the increase in signage.  Ms. Terry clarified that she originally thought an additional variance was required, but after further review a variance is not necessary.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the tenant panel sign would go in the existing sign on the property.  Ms. Ricket stated yes.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-15:

 

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 signage is consistent with other signage 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 applicant is proposing appropriate graphics for this signage and 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 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 of Application #2011-15.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

115 East Elm Street – Subway - Application #2011-17

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

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

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Rodger Kessler.

 

Discussion:

Rodger Kessler, 173 Pinehurst Drive, presented an example of the awning color to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan stated that the presented signage is more consistent with other signage in the Village.  Ms. Terry indicated that all of the requirements for the signage have been met.  Mr. Burriss clarified the number of colors for the signage.  Mr. Kessler explained that black is listed as a color, but this is a technicality because it won’t actually show up.  He stated that it will be used to make the white and yellow stand out better.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-17:

 

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 with the scalloped awning is consistent.

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 is proposing a more consistent awning that matches other awnings in the same 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 of Application #2011-17 with the condition that the awning has scalloped white trim detail to match the awnings for Elm’s Pizza and The Sport Shop.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

420 North Granger Street – Deborah Barber - Application #2011-18

Suburban Residential District – B (SRD-B)

The request is for review and approval of a detached accessory structure.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Deborah Barber. 

 

Discussion:

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  She presented an example of what the accessory structure would look like and this was attached to the application as ‘Exhibit A.’  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the structure would be on a concrete slab.  Ms. Barber stated that they would be using concrete block for the foundation.  Ms. Terry stated that the application meets all of the requirements for lot size, setbacks, and lot coverage.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the applicant is proposing to do the same color on the accessory structure that is on the house.  Ms. Barber stated yes. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-18 with the stipulation that the structure be painted to match the existing home.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

317 West Broadway – Joseph Galano - Application #2011-7

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of an amended two-story addition to an existing garage. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Eric Rosenberg, Gill Miller, James Hale, and Mary Jane McDonald. 

 

Application #2011-7 was previously tabled. 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to remove Application #2011-7 from the table.  Second by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Discussion:

Eric Rosenberg, 395 North Pearl Street, and Applicant's Agent stated that he would like to comment on the issue of massing and the proposed architectural style of the home that was discussed at a previous Planning Commission meeting.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that due to neighbor concerns new plans have been proposed, that reduce the size of the garage, remove the cupola, and install smaller windows for unnecessary intrusions.  He added that blue spruce screening was also added to the plans.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that the massing concerns have been largely addressed by the applicant and his law partner recently met with the neighbors to review the new plans.  He stated that they did not have any objections to the greater lot coverage – provided that the structure didn’t have a second floor.  He stated that the project has been redesigned twice and that the redesign is architecturally complimentary in every way.  Mr. Rosenberg explained that some of the windows have been tailored with landscaping and stained glass.  He stated that there are massive houses already on the street and the proposed changes to the home at 317 West Broadway would correct the only eye sore on the street.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that regarding sustainability and viability, the proposed changes would match up with the streetscapes in the neighborhood and the design for the home is a real compliment to the neighborhood.  He requested approval of the modified plans.   

 

Mary Jane McDonald, 325 West Broadway, stated that she and her neighbors have two primary goals in this matter and that is to protect property in the historical district and maintain the character and privacy they all have in their back yards and gardens.  She stated that they are reasonable people and they want to be neighborly.  Ms. McDonald stated that they have almost complete privacy without the second story garage.  She added that no other homes in the neighborhood have two story garages.  Ms. McDonald stated that the history of the house is that Mr. Galano’s home actually sits on her lot line and some parts of the home are over the lot line.  She stated that her house was built in 1835 and there has not ever been any problem with accessing the home at 317 West Broadway because she always wanted to be a good neighbor.  Ms. McDonald stated that she was contacted by a realtor and lawyer about giving an easement for a strip of property on which the Galano house exists, and in the spirit of good "neighborness" she gave an easement to access the property at any time.  She added that the neighbors have been willing to compromise.  She stated that she never met Mr. Galano, but they did meet with his attorney.  Ms. McDonald stated that she and the neighbors continue to be concerned with the second story on the garage.  She stated that they found the second story on the house to be legitimate and there was a third proposal by the applicant for the house and garage, but there were no modifications for the garage to the intrusion to the back yard.  Ms. McDonald stated that the applicant is proposing a large addition and the various plans for the house have been a moving target.  Ms. McDonald stated that the back yard privacy is vital because they already share their front yard with the community for events such as the 4th of July, parades, bike races, picnics, etc.  Ms. McDonald encouraged the Planning Commission to not allow the construction of the garage at this time, or until after the house addition occurs, especially since the house is so much smaller than the proposed garage.  She added that she would hate to see the garage completed and the house left as is.  She also asked the Planning Commission to consider whether the architectural style for the garage is appropriate for the district.  Ms. McDonald asked for clarification on whether or not the second story of the accessory structure can be utilized for living space.  Ms. Terry clarified that the applicant can use the space for a work area and may have a bathroom, but it is not supposed to be used as a habitable living space.  She added that the second story of the accessory structure cannot be used as an apartment or for a separate single-family residence.   

 

James Hale, 337 West Broadway, stated that the second story garage would be intrusive to neighboring properties and he has concerns with the historical character of the home with the presented changes. 

 

Gill Miller, 337 West Broadway, questioned that once the structure has full plumbing what would keep it from being transferred into a full bathroom or kitchen.  Ms. Terry stated that if they were alerted that someone lived in the structure a cease and desist order would be issued because this is not permissible by Village Code.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that the applicant is requesting a bathroom on the second floor of the accessory structure for his home office and there would not be a shower.  He added that the applicant does not have plans to use this area as a habitable living space.  

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the structures would require an occupancy permit.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  She stated that if a shower and rough plumbing were installed this would be indicated on the building permit by the inspector.  She explained that the Village Planning Department signs off on plans submitted to the Licking County Building Code Department so they can ensure that there isn’t a change between when the permit is issued by the Village and when the permit is issued by the Building Code Department.  Ms. Terry added that in this case they also would include a copy of the permit saying that this can’t be used as a habitable space. 

 

Mr. Ryan questioned that if the Planning Commission were to feel that this structure was not compatible to the house they should be having the discussion of the home first and then the accessory structure.  Law Director King indicated that the Planning Commission could vote to postpone discussion of Application #2011-7 until after the review of the second story addition to the main structure.   

 

Mr. Burriss indicated that there is a discrepancy with the half bath having a skylight above the bathroom.  Mr. Rosenberg was not sure and stated that if the Planning Commission were to pass the plans with a skylight, they would choose an approved style of skylight.  Mr. Johnson stated that the materials listed state “standard ogee gutters”, but the drawings do not appear to show these.  Mr. Rosenberg explained that Mr. Galano works in New York and Mr. Johnson is correct that the gutter location is not depicted in the drawings.  Ms. Terry explained that the list of materials was presented after the drawings were prepared.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is no indication of heating and cooling equipment and this is part of the Planning Commission’s evaluation.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that he would imagine a heat pump would be used.  Ms. Terry stated that this information could be requested later.  Mr. Burris added that the HVAC unit would have to be screened.  Ms. McDonald stated that the garage drawing was unacceptable to the neighbors and there is also concern for the old and large trees.  She stated that there would be a disturbance to her lot.  Ms. McDonald also stated that Mr. Rosenberg is not the attorney that met with the neighbors on this matter.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that he did not meet with the neighbors.  He stated that another option is for Mr. Galano to come back with a design that has everything attached to the front principal structure and it would then be a much longer structure.  He also stated that he agrees with the concern by the neighbors regarding not having the garage approved for building prior to the renovation of the primary structure.  Mr. Rosenberg reviewed the pictures that he submitted as exhibits.  He stated that there would more foliage in the summer months and the tree branches are all below the windows.  He added that he understands the desire for private space and they are talking about three windows to dozens that already exist on the property.  Gill Miller indicated that they haven’t seen any photographs that were submitted.  She stated that the garage plans are not consistent with the neighborhood and the rectangular long end of the structure is viewed from a different vantage point.  

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to postpone discussion and review of criteria for Application #2011-7 until after review of Application #2011-19.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

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

 

After discussion of Application #2011-19 and tabling of the application, the Planning Commission then tabled Application #2011-7 until further information is submitted.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #2011-7.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

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

 

317 West Broadway – Joseph Galano - Application #2011-19

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a second story addition to an existing single-family structure.   

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Eric Rosenberg, James Hale, Gill Miller, and Mary Jane McDonald.

 

Discussion:

Eric Rosenberg, 395 North Pearl Street, stated that he will address any questions that the Planning Commission may have.  Ms. McDonald stated that she and the neighbors didn’t have a significant problem with the number two proposal that was made for the house, except for it being on her property.  She stated that she would have concerns that construction would disturb her plantings.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that he would like to make the record clear that an easement was granted prior to the sale of the property regarding the location of Mr. Galano’s home.  He stated that it was nice of the neighbor to agree to the easement and there is no other intrusion by the proposed addition.  Mr. Burriss stated that the majority of the addition is on the east side of the home and most of the construction would not be on Ms. McDonald’s side.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the applicant is planning to make any changes to the chimney.  Ms. Terry stated that the plans do not indicate any changes.  Mr. Ryan agreed that the chimney looked higher in the drawings.  Mr. Burriss provided some history of the house and stated that it was originally built for the daughter of the church minister as a playhouse.  He stated that sometime around 1936-1937 the house was used as a temporary sorority house and later as a chapter house for a fraternity.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would be interested in some explanation from the author of the drawings as to where the inspiration for architectural elements came from and why he feels they are appropriate for the neighborhood.  He added that this type of information is considered when they approve structures in the AROD.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that the integrity of the house is intact with a second floor added to it.  He added that the roofline is not inconsistent with Granville and most houses started small and became bigger in the Village with additions.  He stated that the drawings before the Planning Commission were an attempt to address concerns raised by the neighbors to be more in keeping with the neighborhood.  He stated that the cupola was taken off and the massing scaled down, with traditional garage doors added.  He stated that the rest of the home is an attempt to stay consistent with the neighborhood.  Mr. Burriss stated that as far as architectural elements, the original home has no brackets and in the new variation there are brackets.  He stated that the detailing on the brackets is much more Victorian in detail than what the original structure is.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would call the original structure a colonial revival style home.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that with the integrity of the small scale home it is out of sync with the neighborhood and this new plan puts the home back in sync with the neighborhood and the street.  Mr. Johnson questioned if there is opposition to removal of the brackets.  Mr. Burriss clarified that the brackets are appropriate to the new plan, just not an element in the existing home.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that the brackets were incorporated to be consistent with the garage front.  He stated that similar brackets exist on Broadway and he doesn’t think it’s a “deal breaker” if the brackets need to be modified with the house.  Mr. Johnson questioned if there is not opposition to the windows on the home and only the windows in the accessory structure.  Gill Miller stated that it was their understanding that there are not windows on the second story of the home facing to the west.  Ms. Terry verified that the plan does not call for windows on the second floor of the primary structure (rear).  Ms. McDonald asked about the brackets and their compatibility in the neighborhood.  She questioned if they are to be compatible with the original structure or the neighboring properties.  Mr. Ryan stated that they were referring the compatibility with the original structure, but the Planning Commission is charged with ensuring compatibility of any new structure with the rest of the neighborhood.  Mr. Ryan stated that he has lost the little house in the presented plan.  Mr. Rosenberg agreed that the existing home as is is little.  He stated that with the presented plans they would be losing a small home, but there is nothing in the code saying that you can’t make a house bigger when you buy a lot.  Ms. Miller asked about dormers on historic homes.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that there is a dormer on a home two doors down and they are all over Granville.  Mr. Burriss stated that the home two doors down has a projecting bay window.  Mr. Burriss went on to say that dormers do exist within the architectural vocabulary of Granville.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the Planning Commission views the house as being compatible with the historic district criteria.  Mr. Burriss suggested gathering additional information and having further discussion.  Mr. Burriss questioned how the hip roof came to be when the existing roof has a low gable.  Mr. Burriss stated that a hip roof is not necessarily a bad choice when one is wanting to reduce massing.  Mr. Rosenberg agreed and stated that the hip roof style was chosen specifically to reduce massing.  He also stated that it is difficult to make a roofline that fits within the code requirements.  He agreed that the hip roof is not the style of the existing house.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that essentially a whole new house would be built to fit in with the neighborhood.  He stated that there is no integrity left to the existing house.  Mr. Ryan stated that the existing house is overshadowed by every other house in the neighborhood as it exists today.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is a feeling on his part that the house is wearing a hat that doesn’t fit as well as it could.  He suggested that the plans be further reviewed and additional information brought forward.  The Planning Commission agreed that they would like further information about the brackets, hip roof, downspouts, and HVAC equipment.  Mr. Ryan added that it would be beneficial and helpful for the architect to be present.  He asked if the owner of the home prefers not to be at the meeting.  Mr. Rosenberg explained that the homeowner, Joseph Galano, works in New York and he is often in Granville – just not typically on a Monday evening.  He stated that he would check Mr. Galano’s availability.  Mr. Rosenberg agreed that he could bring further information forward, but he would like to note that a change in the roofline, etc. will not solve the neighbor’s concerns.  Mr. Ryan asked if the house itself is acceptable for the neighbors as a two-story structure.  Ms. McDonald stated that the garage is the big problem and they want to emphasize that they would like the structure to be in keeping with the Village.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he would like further explanation about the east elevation windows not lining up.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that these are the windows that are currently in place.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the sizing of the newly presented windows is appropriate in relation to the existing windows.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that they attempted to change the window size due to the neighbors.  Mr. Johnson questioned how the downspouts on the south and west elevation would daylight.  Mr. Burriss suggested checking with the building department on the appropriate height of the chimney.  Mr. Rosenberg asked if architecturally there were any concerns for the garage.  Mr. Burriss stated that essentially the two structures are married architecturally,  so the same architectural concerns for the house would apply.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that a total redesign would be required if the neighbors are saying that they want the side elevation to go straight up rather than having windows and a dormer.  Mr. Ryan stated that he does have concern over the west elevation of the garage because it would be the only two-story outbuilding on the block and building massing would be an issue. 

 

Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant, Mr. Rosenberg, is requesting to table Application #2011-19 to gather additional information.  Mr. Rosenberg stated yes.   

 

Mr. Burris moved to table Application #2011-19.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

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

 

384 East Broadway – Terra Nova Partners, LLC - Application #2011-20

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

The request is for review and approval of a lot split. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Herach Nazarian, and Bryon Reed.

 

Discussion:

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, stated that they had a great discussion with BZBA and the required variances were granted.  Mr. Reed submitted examples of lot splits in the Village for the record.  Ms. Terry explained that the lots were shown with conceptual house plans to show that the lot coverage and adequacy of yard space requirements can be met. She also stated that the Code does not have a minimum square footage requirement for houses constructed in the Village.  Mr. Reed stated that they will come back to present the house plans in a few weeks.  Mr. Burriss asked if an aerial view, showing the College Town House structure and other adjacent structures, could be provided to show the relationship of existing structures to proposed structures.  Ms. Terry stated that Staff would work with the applicant to get this information for the Planning Commission.  She also stated that there are pins located in the parking lot.  Ms. Terry explained that the BZBA variances didn’t specify access to the property.  Mr. Reed indicated that they are proposing access from Granger Street after discussions in work sessions.  Mr. Burriss stated that one concern he has that has nothing to do with the lot split is allowing a five foot space at the back edge of the property to allow for plantings.  Mr. Reed stated that this could be addressed with the survey. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve of Application #2011-20.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

125 West Elm Street – Christian and Stephanie Kuntz - Application #2011-21

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a porch addition, exterior remodeling and wrap around decks and railings. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Stephanie Kuntz, Rod Haynes and David Schnaidt.

 

Discussion:

Christian Kuntz, 125 West Elm Street, was present to address any concerns.  She stated that the contractor is Rod Haynes of Teeters Construction.  Mr. Ryan asked if the necessary requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  She asked about the extension of the railing along the side property line, beyond where it currently exists, and stated that it would have to be ten feet away from this property line or a variance would be required.  Mr. Haynes stated that the railing would be ten feet away and would not wrap around the structure.  Mr. Burriss applauded efforts to fix up the exterior of the home. 

 

David Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street, stated that he hadn’t had a chance to discuss the changes with Mr. or Mrs. Kuntz.  He stated that overall he is excited for the neighborhood and the proposed changes are a step in the right direction.  He stated that he did want to see how the plans would affect the west elevation and the concrete wall that they have looked at for the last fifteen years.  He stated that he is curious about materials on the wall and the proposed supports underneath the railing area. 

 

Rod Haynes, Teeters Construction, 735 Cross Pointe Road, Gahanna, stated that they would mount a cover on the drain tile.  He indicated that the top of the wall would be stucco and they would put a parge coat finish that continues over top of the block wall.  Mr. Haynes stated that that they would use the existing brackets to match the front.  Mr. Burriss asked about the style of shingles.  Mr. Haynes stated that they would be staggered ‘Cedar Impressions.’  Mr. Burriss asked if the porch columns would have trim around the edges or a base/cap.  Mr. Haynes stated they are proposing no trim.   

 

Mr. Haynes presented an example of the proposed railing to be used.  Mr. Johnson asked the color of the stucco.  Mr. Haynes stated that it would be a concrete gray natural finish.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the soffits would be left as is.  Mr. Haynes stated that they would be replaced in white vinyl.   Mr. Johnson asked if the spiral staircase would match the existing railing.  Mr. Haynes stated yes.  Mr. Burriss agreed that the proposal by the applicant is more architecturally consistent than what currently exists and he has no objection to the application.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-21:

 

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 projects approved.  

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 is proposing an upgrade to the existing elements on 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 applicant’s proposal.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the house would be maintained by the proposed improvements. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion recommend approval of Application #2011-21 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

128 East Broadway – Bella - Application #2011-23

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of two (2) window signs.

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Steve Larsen.

 

Discussion:

Steve Larsen, Newark-Granville Road, stated that he is a commercial developer, and he is also a minimalist when it comes to signage.  He indicated that he thought the presented plan before the Planning Commission was the least invasive.  He also stated that their proposal is within the code requirements.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-23:

 

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 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 is proposing an acceptable sign.  

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 by the applicant.

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 of Application #2011-23 as submitted by the applicant.   Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2010-60 AMENDED: Gallery M/Maggie Sobataka; 113 North Prospect Street; Sidewalk Sign Relocation

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 Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-60 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-60 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

Application #2011-12: Ben Rader; 122 East Broadway; Sidewalk Cafe

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 recommends approval to the Village Council of Application #2011-12 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-12.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2011-13: Noblick/McDonald; 325 West Broadway; 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1176 Transportation Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-13 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-13.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2011-14: Patty Ricket; 212 South Main Street; Change of Use

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 1183, Parking and Loading Requirements, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-14 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-14.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2011-15: Patty Ricket; 212 South Main Street; Signage

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 #2011-15 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-15.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2011-17: Subway; 115 Elm Street; Awning 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 1161 Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-17 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-17.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2011-18: Deborah Barber; 420 North Granger Street; Shed

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 1157, General Zoning Regulations, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-18 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-18.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2011-20: Terra Nova Partners; 384 East Broadway; Lot Split

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1113, Procedure for Plat Approval and Chapter 1159, Village District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-20 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-20.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2011-21: Christian and Stephanie Kuntz; 125 East Elm Street; Exterior Modification

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 #2011-21 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-21.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2011-23: Bella/Steve Larson; 125 East Broadway; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-23 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-23.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Motion to excuse absent Commission Members:

Mr. Burriss moved to excuse Tom Mitchell and Steven Hawk from the Planning Commission meeting on April 11, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0.  

 

Adjournment:  9:25 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, April 25, 2011

Monday, May 9, 2011

Monday, May 23, 2011 (Tim Ryan indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.)

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.