Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes January 3, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

January 3, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jeremy Johnson, Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk, and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting),

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

Also Present: John Noblick, Keith McWalter, Kevin Reiner, Constance Barsky, Anne- Sara Odor, and Steven Katz.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

224 East Broadway – Anne Sara Odor - Application #2010-178

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Anne Sara Odor.

 

Application #2010-178 was previously Tabled. 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to remove Application #2010-178 from the Table.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Discussion:

Anne Sara Odor indicated that she would like to place a sidewalk sign outside of her business located at 224 East Broadway.  Mr. Ryan asked the proposed location of the sidewalk sign.  Ms. Odor stated that she would like to place the sign on the walkway into the business – specifically in the yard area – per ‘Exhibit A’.  She indicated that it would be in the same location as the Petali Teas sidewalk sign.  Mr. Ryan asked if the submitted picture is representative of what Ms. Odor would like the sign to look like.  Ms. Odor presented a new photograph of the signage she would like to use.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has continually advised and required other applicants to have a frame or border around the graphics of all sidewalk signage.  Ms. Odor stated that she didn’t believe that Ace Printing or Petali Teas have a frame around their signage.  Mr. Burriss clarified that they do have a border.  Ms. Odor agreed that she could do a border that matches the border on her existing store signage.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-178:

 

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 similar requests if it has a border added to the signage.  

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’s signage is consistent with other signage 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 signage.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the signage is graphically appropriate and historically accurate. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-178 with the condition that the location of the sidewalk signage is behind the public sidewalk per ‘Exhibit A’; and that the signage is placed indoors during non-business hours; and the border on the sidewalk sign is similar in scale to the main sign for the business.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

New Business:

223 East Elm Street – Keith and Courtney McWalter - Application #2010-180

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

The request is for review and approval of the structural demolition of a two-story

detached accessory structure.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, John Noblick, Kevin Reiner, Keith McWalter, Constance Barsky, and Steve Katz.

 

Discussion:

Kevin Reiner, indicated that he is representing the applicant’s Keith and Courtney McWalter.  He explained that the applicant is requesting to demolish the existing accessory structure and place a new structure on the same footprint.  Mr. Reiner stated that the existing barn is leaning to the east and the foundation is bad.  He stated that they have nuisance animals in the barn and the siding is rotting.    Mr. Reiner stated that he is excited to work on a building in the Village that they can attempt to reproduce the historical character that was there.  

 

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.  Mr. Burriss stated that the removal of the structure has a proposal with it that will be replaced with a structure in the same footprint. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

b)         The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the Planning Commission received a letter from the Granville Historical Society indicating that they felt that the proposed structure to be demolished was of no historical significance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

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.  Mr. Burriss added that a reputable contractor will be doing the work on the demolition and new structure.   

 

d)         The proposed future construction plans for the demolished area meet the zoning requirements of the zoning district and are 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the application should be Tabled until the plans for the new structure are reviewed.  They later removed Application #2010-180 from the Table and unanimously agreed TRUE to this criteria. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #2010-180 to review the plans for the proposed replacement (Application #2010-181).  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to remove Application #2010-180 from the Table.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion recommend approval to Village Council for the demolition of the accessory structure for Application #2010-180.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

223 East Elm Street – Keith and Courtney McWalter - Application #2010-180

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a two - story

detached accessory structure to be located in the rear yard, of the following materials:

                       

1.         Roof Material:  Owens Corning ‘Duration’ dimensional shingles in Driftwood;

2.         Siding & Trim:

a.         Siding:  Painted ½” AC plywood with 1x2 cedar vertical batten strips every 16”o.c.;

b.         Trim: 

1)         Windows, doors, & corner boards: 1 x 4 cedar

2)         Garage Overhead Doors, Sliding Barn Door: 1 x 6 cedar 

3)         Man Door: 1 x 8 cedar header trim

3.         Service Doors:

a.         North Elevation:

1)         Man Door: Fir wood 1 ¾”, two panel bottom, four true

divided–lite top half;

2)         Sliding Barn Door: Wood frame faced with 1 x 6 cedar

b.         East Elevation: Garage Overhead doors, Wayne-Dalton flush hardboard with 1 x 6 cedar trim plants around and across doors;

4.         Gutters and Downspouts:  White aluminum, half round, 5” with white round downspouts onto splash blocks;     

5.         Windows: Jeld-Wen wooden awning style, aluminum exteriors, 7/8” simulated divided lites;      

6.         Foundation:  Not indicated;

7.         Light Fixtures: Gooseneck, galvanized metal, 14” shade, with incandescent bulbs

                         

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, John Noblick, Keith McWalter, Kevin Reiner, Constance Barsky, and Steven Katz.

 

Discussion:

Kevin Reiner indicated that the applicant would like to build a two-story accessory structure in place of the demolished barn.  He stated that the structure would be respectful of the existing neighborhood and would be located in the same footprint.  He reviewed the list of proposed materials (above).  Mr. Burriss questioned if the architectural detailing of the saw tooth siding facing the alley way would remain and had this been considered for the gable.  Mr. Reiner stated that this was not conducive for the budget and he came up with the presented idea by looking at other Granville and Licking County area barns to compare.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the batten strips would be on sixteen-inch centers?  He went on to say that he realizes that the plans are trying to simulate batten board siding, but he questioned if this look is convincing.  Mr. Reiner stated that he had considered placing the battens at twelve inches on center, rather than sixteen, but it seemed too busy.  He stated that a barn on Granger Street has sixteen-inch centers.  Mr. Johnson asked if the man door is usable.  Mr. Reiner explained that this door will be on a track and will slide and it will look like a real barn door that slides open.  Mr. Reiner clarified that the roof shingles listed on the application are in the color of Estate Gray and this is incorrect.  He stated that they would like to change this to the color of Driftwood.  He also stated that the application mistakenly says that they will be using vinyl clad exterior windows and this should be changed to aluminum clad windows - which is the same as the house.  Mr. Ryan asked for further explanation on why the gable couldn’t have the existing detailing.  Mr. Reiner stated that they chose not to do this due to ease of construction.  He explained that McClain Builders told him that this would hold the price down if they keep the gable as presented.  Mr. Burriss commented that the north elevation with the barn door is towards the house.  Mr. Reiner stated yes.  He stated that if the applicant didn’t do the expense of the simulated barn door on that elevation facing the house they perhaps could do the gable detailing facing the alley.  He commented that the gable detailing is not of historical significance, but it is of architectural significance.  Mr. Burriss stated that they are losing the metal roof, and he understands that replacing this is too expensive, and they are losing the saw tooth detailing towards the alley.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that he didn’t see a gain or loss in having the saw tooth detailing. 

 

Steven Katz, 221 East Elm Street, stated that the barn that the applicant is proposing to demolish is of little to no historical significance because it is only about fifteen years old, as it was built in the mid 1990s.  He explained that the previous barn before this caught fire and that barn was also non-descript.  Mr. Katz stated that the existing barn is not historically accurate at all in his opinion and it makes little sense to try and reconstruct what is currently there.  He added that he and his wife like the applicant’s plan very much and they urge the Planning Commission to consider the proposal as is. 

 

Mr. Johnson asked if there are downspouts facing the alley.  Mr. Reiner clarified that the downspouts will daylight onto the splash block and they do face the alley.  Mr. Johnson asked how the applicant is proposing to do the roof venting.  Mr. Reiner stated that there would be a soffit and ridge vent.  Mr. Johnson asked the style of the soffit venting.  Mr. Noblick stated that they would have screened soffit vents.  Mr. Reiner added that he prefers to use continuous screened vents and they will use a standard ridge vent.  Mr. Reiner presented a picture (part of his application) that has a shadow line that would be horizontal wood to distinguish the gable.  The Planning Commission all preferred the look of the shadow line.  Mr. Burriss asked if the batten strips are lined up.  Mr. Reiner stated that the drawing may not depict these being lined up – but they will be lined up for construction.  Ms. Terry clarified that the height of the proposed new structure would increase from 22 foot high to 25 foot high. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-181:

 

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 of a similar nature.

 

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 structurally sound building than is currently in place.   

 

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 structure with since it will be a usable two-car garage which will keep cars from utilizing the on-street parking.

 

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion recommend approval of Application #2010-181 on the condition that the applicant receive the required variances from the BZBA; and that the applicant receives permission from the Village Council to tear down the old structure; and that the color of the roof be changed to driftwood and not Estate Gray as indicated in the application; and that the windows be changed to aluminum exterior and not vinyl clad as indicated in the application; and that the stone veneer on the accessory structure match the existing house.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2010-178: Anne Sara Odor; Sidewalk Permit

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 #2010-178 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-178. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

New Business:

Application #2010-180: Keith and Courtney McWalter; Demolition Permit

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1162, Structural Demolition, and hereby recommends approval of Application #2010-180, to the Village Council, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-180. 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-181: Keith and Courtney McWalter; Accessory Structure

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 Business District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-181 as submitted by the applicant, and indicated in the conditions of approval.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-181. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from the December 13, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Adjournment:  8:00 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, January 24, 2011

Monday, February 7, 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.