Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes February 28, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 28, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry; Assistant to Planning Department, Debi Walker.

Also Present: Johne and Leigh Brennan, Chip Blanchard, Brian Miller, Ben Pickrell, Richard Downs, Jurgen Pape, Bryan Reed, Tim Rollins, Jack Lucks, Tom Linzell, Gill Miller, Mary Jane McDonald, James Hale, and Tyler Lucks.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under ‘Citizens’ Comments.’

 

New Business:

 

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 a two-story addition to an existing garage. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Richard Downs, and Gill Miller.

 

Discussion:

The applicant was not present when Application #2011-7 was scheduled on the agenda to be heard.  Mr. Ryan asked Ms. Miller, whom was present to speak in regards to the application, if she minded waiting for the applicant to arrive so the Planning Commission could discuss the request.  Ms. Miller agreed. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to Table Application #2011-7.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Mr. Richard Downs arrived at 8:10, after Planning Commission consideration of Application #2011-8. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to remove Application #2011-7 from the Table.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Discussion:

Richard Downs, 4147 Loudon Street, apologized to the Planning Commission for being late.  He indicated that he is representing the owner of the property, Mr. Joseph Galano.  He stated that Mr. Galano is moving here from New York and was unable to attend the meeting.  He stated that Mr. Galano purchased the property and then found that he needed additional living space because he was going to have to move his mother in with him due to her health.  He stated that Mr. Galano is an architect and wanted to create a working studio to facilitate his career as an architect and is proposing this addition for this studio.  Gill Miller, 337 West Broadway, stated that she lives two doors west of the applicant.  Ms. Miller stated that she has three points of concern regarding Application #2011-8.  She stated that the addition is in disproportion to the scale that is presented for the primary structure.  She stated that the primary structure is a simple one-story and the proposed addition is a two-story structure.  Ms. Miller stated that none of the out buildings on the block are one story with two-story accessory structures.  Ms. Miller stated that her second point is that the architectural style is not in any relationship to that of the property.  She stated that there are unrelated elements proposed for a house that is modest and a one-story vernacular home.  She went on to say that the addition appears to be larger than the primary house.  Ms. Miller stated that her third point is that the neighborhood has private back yards and all of the homes in this area “donate their front yards for the public.”  She stated that the back yard often becomes a private garden and the new two-story structure proposed by the applicant would peer down into private back yard spaces.  She stated she has concerns that the proposed palladian windows that are nine over one would look into West Elm Street private garden spaces.  Ms. Miller stated that she has no objection to the proposed use of the applicant’s addition, but they hope the Planning Commission will guide the applicant towards a compromise that is more in keeping with the block and neighborhood.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he “wishes he could be as eloquent as Gill Miller” in her explanation and he agrees with her comments.  He stated that the proposed 1,350 square feet for the garage is way out of proportion and it is a different style from the house.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked the total square footage of the house.  Alison Terry stated that the footprint is 1,562 and the one story home has a full basement.  Mr. Downs stated that he will not weigh in on this until he is able to relay the neighbor concerns to Mr. Galano.  He stated that the neighbors and Mr. Galano can mutually address these concerns, since Mr. Galano did the design.  Mr. Downs stated that he does not live on this block and he doesn’t want to express a specific opinion.  He stated that the drawings can be deceiving when it comes to size and he stated that he understands the neighbor concerns, but he hopes that this is something that can be worked out and be mitigated.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this is the attitude that is correct and is appreciated by the commission.  Mr. Mitchell explained that a couple Ordinances apply to this situation, such as building massing.  He stated that, hopefully, the homeowner/architect can alter some of the characteristics that are being proposed and be more amendable to the concerns of the neighbors.  Mr. Downs stated that he is hopeful that the homeowner can be here for the next meeting.  He agreed that the application should be tabled until the next meeting.  He explained that the homeowner was designing the addition to try to avoid the need for any variances.  He also stated that he doesn’t necessarily think that a one-story principal structure and two-story accessory structure are incompatible.  Mr. Downs stated that the homeowner tried to be respectful of the zoning restrictions and it is possible that he may want to look at getting a variance for lot coverage to accomplish his goal.  He stated that the design before the Planning Commission was generated out of necessity, rather than a poor sense of judgment.  Mr. Hawk stated that he agrees with Ms. Miller’s comments and the home massing is significant.  Mr. Burriss stated that the articulation of the massing should also be taken into consideration.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table Application #2011-8.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

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

 

454 South Main Street – Granville Dance & Music Academy - Application #2011-8

Community Service District (CSD)

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

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Ben Pickrell.

 

Discussion:

Ben Pickrell, 454 South Main Street, Granville, stated that they would like to place a wall sign on the building.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that there is LED lighting available for this type of light which could be much more environment friendly.  Mr. Pickrell stated that he did not know this and he will look into this.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant meets all of the necessary requirements. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2011-8 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

126 West Elm Street – Johne and Leigh Brennan - Application #2011-9

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of an in-ground swimming pool and a

privacy fence to be located in the rear yard. 

                       

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

 

Discussion:

Johne Brennan, 126 West Elm Street, was available to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan asked if the trellis will be removed in the front left corner of the property.  Mr. Brennan stated yes.  Village Planner, Alison Terry, stated that the application meets all of the requirements.  She stated that the fencing is required to be five foot high to prevent uncontrolled access to the swimming pool. 

Mr. Mitchell stated that the home is very pretty but he is not sure that the proposed style of fence is in keeping with the style of the house.  He asked if there was any chance the applicant would be willing to move the fence to the back so it is not so visible from the street.  Mr. Brennan asked where Mr. Mitchell recommends this relocation. 

 

Mr. Brennan stated that the reason for the proposed location of the fence is due to the existing archway, which they are planning to remove and the patio space directly behind.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the applicant could leave the existing fence and trellis and place the other control fence towards in the back corner of the house.  Mr. Brennan stated that this could be done, but then when they look out from their dining room window – they will see a fence and not their back yard.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he would prefer to not see the fencing at the front of the structure due to the aesthetic from the street.  Mr. Brennan stated that he will be looking out from the window more than a passerby will be looking at the fence.  He went on to say that if moving the fence is needed for approval of the project – he will move the fence, but he prefers to leave it as presented in the application. 

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there have been any comments from the neighbors.  Ms. Terry stated she hadn’t received any comments regarding this application.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the fence has to be opaque and if it could be a five-foot high fence that you can see through.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the fencing could be left in the location presented by the applicant, but have a four-foot high solid bottom and one foot high lattice top in the front location only.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned how sturdy a lattice fence would be.  Mr. Burriss stated that only the top of the fence would have lattice.  Mr. Burriss stated that he can appreciate what the applicant is saying about the view from his home.  He suggested moving the whole fence back and take out the existing lattice to open up that side of the home.  Mr. Hawk agreed that this would be a good compromise to give the fence some architectural style and he supports this, rather than having two fences.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if there was any additional lighting proposed for the swimming pool.  Mr. Ryan noted that the application stated that there is not any additional lighting proposed. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-9:

 

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 if it has a sealed and finished 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 applicant is proposing a historically appropriate fence with the changes suggested by the Planning Commission and agreed to by the applicant.

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 proposal of the applicant.

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 #2011-9 with the condition that the applicant install a sealed fence and that the fence on the northeast and northwest have a one-foot lattice detail on the top 1/3 portion of the fence.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Work Session

Terra Nova Partners to discuss a potential lot split of the property located at 384 East Broadway.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and has received conditional use approval for a single family residential structure. 

 

Discussion:

Bryon Reed stated that he wanted feedback from the Planning Commission regarding his proposal.  He stated that his partner on this project would be here, but he is out of town.  Mr. Reed stated that they are proposing to subdivide the single lot into two lots and this is in the Village Business District (VBD) already.  He indicated that they would not need any variances for the lots if they are split as in the proposal.  Ms. Terry indicated that the proposed driveway location on North Granger Street would require variances due to the Access Management Guidelines adopted in 2005.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the access point would be best off of Granger Street, rather than Broadway – even if this would require a variance.  He stated that a driveway in the front yard on Broadway is not preferred in his opinion.  Mr. Hawk agreed with Mr. Mitchell that he would prefer to see the driveway located off of Granger Street.  Mr. Reed agreed that they could certainly look at moving the driveway.  He stated that the reason the lots are this size is because it would require a variance for anything different.  Ms. Terry explained that the side yard setbacks are established by other properties on Granger Street and the front yard setbacks are set by the College Town House and Granville Inn.  Mr. Reed stated that they may consider requesting a variance to move the front yard setback up and be consistent with the school district offices on Granger Street, since these structures will be across the street.  He stated that neighbors have indicated that they would be ok with this proposal and moving the homes up would also allow for them to save a few trees in the rear yard.  Mr. Reed stated that the driveway location on Broadway would not require a variance.  Mr. Hawk and Mr. Mitchell agreed that a variance for moving the driveway to Granger Street makes sense in this particular case.  They stated that taking the driveway off of Broadway and moving it to Granger Street would allow for more landscaping.  Mr. Reed questioned if anyone on the Planning Commission saw a huge problem with the proposed lot split overall.  He stated that the research they’ve done makes more sense to split the lot and build two single-family homes.  He added that this would be an attractive east side entrance on that end of town.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicants approached her about amending their conditional use application and it was staffs recommendation that this would be considered a more intense use of the property and require BZBA approval.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned the width of the access point for the driveways coming off of the Granger Street.  Mr. Reed stated that they would need twenty feet and this is another reason that they would like to move the homes up - for maneuverability.  Mr. Burriss stated that he does have some issues with the architectural elements for Granger Street elevation on the one proposed structure.  Mr. Burriss went on to say that he likes the windows, venting, and symmetry but the left side of the other house is more interesting.  He stated that perhaps more intense landscaping could be put in place so one isn’t walking along on Granger Street viewing a wall.  He suggested more detail, such as a bay window.  He also stated that the design feels a little more like New Albany, rather than Granville.  Mr. Reed stated that he has pictures that this is actually designed, to other structures in Granville.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would welcome seeing evidence towards that.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he would not have any objections to a lot split.  Mr. Burriss stated that he has the most concerns with the architectural elements of the Granger Street elevation and he doesn’t have a problem with the Granger Street driveway.  Mr. Reed stated that the BZBA also discussed their preference to moving the driveway to Granger Street.  Mr. Reed stated that perhaps they could look at switching the elevations of the home – with the patio towards Granger Street, but this may require an additional variance. 

 

 

Work Session

(Tom Mitchell recused himself from the remainder of the Planning Commission meeting at 8:15 PM.)

 

Representatives from Metropolitan Partners were available to discuss renovations to the existing Shurtz Building.  The property is located at 1919 Lancaster Road and is zoned Village Gateway District (VGD).

 

Discussion:

Tim Rollins, Metropolitan Partners, stated that they would like to do an updated look for the Shurtz building with new windows, roofing, cupola, and increased lighting.  He presented drawings of what the building might look like.  He indicated that they are going for a rural vernacular look.  Mr. Hawk later indicated that he is not comfortable with a rural vernacular look for the gateway into the Village.  Mr. Rollins explained that they looked at the design of the peripheral buildings, such as the rail station, mill, and lumberyard.  He stated that they certainly took the look of these structures into consideration.  He added that the future additional buildings they have planned for this area would have a different look, but would be encompassing of what they are presenting.  Mr. Rollins added that they were somewhat limited on choices for the Shurtz structure and they chose this type of look because they thought Village Council preferred it.  Tim Ryan indicated that he agrees with Steve Hawk and he too is not in favor of a “farm look” for this area. Mr. Hawk stated that he can understand why the applicant went in this direction if this was the advice of Village Council.  He added that he prefers the look of other nice projects that the applicant has done in the central Ohio area.  He stated that others may have preferred the presented look, but this is before he and some of the other Planning Commission member’s were on the board.  Jack Lucks indicated that this has been a four to five year project.  Mr. Rollins presented an earlier rendition of a drawing that was submitted for discussion regarding changes to the Shurtz building.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant intended to keep the drive-thru.  Mr. Rollins explained that this is in place to equip the structure with a non-food use drive-thru.  Village Planner, Alison Terry, stated that when the Village Gateway District was adopted, some additional language was added for “vernacular farmhouse” and “saltbox” type structures.  Mr. Hawk indicated he prefers the look of a saltbox. Councilmember O’Keefe recalled that Village Council had decided to leave the design elements up to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan stated that Council struck some of the types of improvements that they suggested down.  Ms. Terry agreed that the architectural style was left up to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Lucks stated that this building was one of the uglier buildings in Granville.  Ms. Terry asked if it would make a difference to the Planning Commission if this proposed design had board and batten siding instead of horizontal siding.  Mr. Burriss stated that knowing what the applicant started with on this particular structure and knowing the guidance they received, he would compliment the proposal, but he would like to address some concerns.  He stated that he would encourage “more of a Granville out building vocabulary and nice rural agriculture vocabulary.”  Mr. Burriss described some older farmhouse looks in the Granville area.  He stated that he would prefer to see a standing seam metal roof to give the building an agricultural look and he could be ok with or without board and batten siding.  Mr. Lucks indicated that standing seam metal roofing was not an option due to cost.  Mr. Rollins presented a sample of the wide asphalt diamond shingle that they are proposing for the building.  The Planning Commission liked the look of the asphalt diamond shingle.  Mr. Lucks stated that asphalt shingles are widely used in Granville. Mr. Rollins stated that the proposed color of the building would be Nantucket Red, and the future outbuildings would be in white.  The Planning Commission discussed whether or not they preferred white over red.  Mr. Burriss suggested that perhaps the roof of the cupola could have metal and maybe the breezeway area.  He stated that if this was broken up with metal and asphalt shingles it would break up the building massing.  He also suggested a metal cap on the ridges.  Mr. Burriss asked what the gutters and downspouts would be.  Mr. Rollins stated half round downspouts and gutters are proposed.  Mr. Burriss suggested a combination of board and batten siding and lap siding.  Mr. Ryan agreed that he likes these suggestions given by Mr. Burriss.  Mr. Burriss questioned if there could be a compromise on the south elevation to have a set of barn doors, rather than a blank red wall.  The Planning Commission also reviewed the landscape design provided from John Klauder for the Shurtz building. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-8: Granville Dance & Music Academy; Wall 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, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-8 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Ryan moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-8. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-9: Johne and Leigh Brennan; Swimming Pool and Privacy 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 Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, Chapter 1185, Swimming Pools and Special Provisions, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-9 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Ryan moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-9.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

 

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from the February 7, 2011 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

March 14, 2011

April 11, 2011

April 25, 2011

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.