Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes July 11, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 11, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tim Ryan, Steven Hawk, Tom Mitchell, and Jack Burriss.

Members Absent:  Jeremy Johnson and Councilmember O’Keefe. 

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

Also Present: Russell & Amy Hall, Mark Clapsadle, Steve & Elizabeth Gaubert, Erik Klemetti, Susan Glover, Steve Herb, Sara Lee, Mary Thurlow-Collen, and Kevin Reiner.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

331 Spellman Street – Russell & Amy Hall - Application #2011-76

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a of a new brick paver in the side and rear yard. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Russell & Amy Hall.

 

Russell Hall, 331 Spellman Street, stated that they would like to replace a deck with a brick patio.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the setback requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell questioned what the pillars would look like.  Ms. Hall stated that the pillars would be built from the pavers and they would be a basic square.  Mr. Mitchell asked how high the pillars would be.  Ms. Walker stated thirty-eight (38”) inches.  Mr. Hawk asked why the drawing doesn’t show the pillars to be of equal distance.  Mr. Hall clarified that the seating wall would be between the pillars. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-76:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the application is consistent with other similar applications approved 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 project is more uniform than the existing multi-leveled deck. 

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 because the livability of the home is enhanced. 

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 material is more appropriate than the multi-level wood decking currently in place.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-76 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

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

 

86 Fairview Avenue – Walter Palawsky & Denise Landman - Application #2011-67

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a two-story addition on the western side of the home. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

Mark Clapsadle, 4380 Granview Road, indicated that he is representing the homeowners, as the architect for the project.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that they are looking at an extension of the current spaces to accommodate more of a family atmosphere.  He explained that there is the possibility of eliminating some of the bedroom to expand the closet and he would be using all of the materials originally used on the home.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that he designed the original home in 2004 and would reuse some of the windows being torn out. 

 

Ms. Terry stated that the height of the structure would require a variance from the BZBA because it's taller than the allowable 30 foot height requirement.  She went on to say that the file shows that a previous variance was given for the original height of the house, but since this is an addition – another variance is required.  Mr. Hawk asked if there is a basement.  Mr. Clapsadle stated yes that there is a finished basement.  Mr. Burriss asked if the existing basement has fire egress windows.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that he would be eliminating the two windows on the west side, but the bedroom on the southeast corner would remain and there are egress windows in this location.  The Planning Commission indicated that they did not have a problem with the proposed building massing.       

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-77:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed addition is similar to other 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 proposed materials are appropriate.

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. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that historically appropriate materials are proposed in a historically appropriate way.    

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-77 contingent upon the applicant receiving a variance for height from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

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

 

317 East Maple Street – Steve & Elizabeth Gaubert - Application #2011-78

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a first floor rear addition, second story western side addition, shed roof dormers on the second story of the front elevations, new double hung windows and skylights in eastern side.  He stated that he would also be reworking some of the windows on the west side of the home.     

 

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

 

Discussion:

Mark Clapsadle, 4380 Granview Road, indicated that he is representing the homeowner, as the architect for the plans.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that the expansion would include a much needed closet, bathroom, and more living space for the bedrooms with the added dormers.  Mr. Mitchell asked if all of the setback requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the shed dormers are an equal distance from the roof on both ends.  Mr. Clapsadle stated yes.  Mr. Burriss discussed the proposed location for the skylights.  Mr. Clapsadle explained that these were added to the plan for additional light, but they could eliminate one if need be.  Mr. Clapsadle explained that the skylights would be low in the room.  Mr. Mitchell asked if they would be using solar tubes.  Mr. Clapsadle stated no.  The Planning Commission indicated that they did not have any issues with the proposed building massing.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-78:

 

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 project is consistent with other projects 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 addition has architectural details visible from the street that are appropriate.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that approval of the application contributes to the vitality and livability of the home. 

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 #2011-78 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

425 North Granger Street – Erik Klemetti & Susan Glover - Application #2011-80

Suburban Residential District-B (SRB-B)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the demolition of a wooden garage with attached shed.  

 

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

 

Discussion:

Erik Klemetti, 425 North Granger Street, stated that he would like to remove a deteriorating structure and replace it with a grassy area and a small shed.  Mr. Ryan asked if the shed would have a foundation.  Mr. Klemetti stated that it would be secured down, but not on a permanent foundation like concrete. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-80:

 

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 adjacent street or right of way.  The Planning Commission concluded TRUE. 

 

b)         The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  The Planning Commission concluded TRUE. 

 

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

 

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 concluded TRUE. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2011-80 to Village Council as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

219 West Broadway – Kevin Reiner- Application #2011-84

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a of a greenhouse addition on the rear of the accessory structure.

 

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

 

Discussion: Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, stated that the proposed greenhouse would be made from a vintage greenhouse and reclaimed materials.  He went on to say that sandstone would be used for the foundation and the structure would have two new two-panel doors.  Mr. Reiner stated that the size of the structure would be 11.5 foot high at the ridge and 8.5 feet high at the eave.  Ms. Terry stated that this application would require variances from the BZBA for full approval.  Mr. Hawk questioned why approval for this came after approval was given for the accessory structure.  Mr. Reiner stated that this was because he was unsure if he wanted a pergola or a greenhouse.  Mr. Reiner also  stated that he has spoken with all of his neighbors and he didn’t receive any negative feedback.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant would be heating the greenhouse.  Mr. Reiner stated yes.  He also stated that you couldn’t see the structure from the neighbor’s homes due to the existing hedges.  Mr. Mitchell clarified if the air conditioning unit is existing.  Mr. Reiner stated yes.  Ms. Terry stated three variances are required from the BZBA for lot coverage, east and west side variances, and the rear yard variance.  The Planning Commission indicated that they did not have any issues with the proposed building massing.       

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-84:

 

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 greenhouse 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 structure is compatible with the existing structures on the property.

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 proposed greenhouse.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss agreed that the proposed greenhouse is historically appropriate for the home. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-84 contingent upon the approval of the required variances from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

329 East College Street – Sara Lee and Mary Thurlow-Collen- Application #2011-87

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of an addition above the second story. 

 

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

 

Discussion: Sara Lee, 124 Cherry Street, stated she would like to add an addition above the existing second floor.  Ms. Terry indicated that a variance would be required to add a second story addition.  She further explained that the first floor is grandfathered and there is not any record of a variance in the file.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant needs an additional variance even if there was one on file because they are still building the structure up.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant is trying to match the addition to the  existing exterior.  Ms. Lee stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if the proposed chimney in the plans is to code.  He indicated that the proposed chimney looks low and there are specific rules for the code on this and the applicant may want to look into this.  The Planning Commission did not indicate any problems with the proposed building massing for the addition.      

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-87:

 

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 addition is consistent with other additions in the same zoning district.    

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the continuity of the structure 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 from the proposed addition.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss agreed that the proposed material for the addition is historically appropriate. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-87 contingent on the applicant receiving the required variance from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-76: Russell & Amy Hall; 331 Spellman Street; Patio

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 hereby gives approval of Application #2011-76 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-76. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-77: Walter Palawsky & Denise Landman; 86 Fairview Ave.; Addition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-77 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-77. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-78: Steve and Elizabeth Gaubert; 317 East Maple Street; Addition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-78 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-78. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-80: Erik Klemetti & Susan Glover; 425 North Granger Street; Demolition

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 #2011-80 to the Village Council as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-80. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-84: Kevin Reiner; 219 West Broadway; Addition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-84 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-84. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-87: Sara Lee and Mary Thurlow-Collen; 329 East College; Addition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-87 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-87. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the absence of Jeremy Johnson from the July 11, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for June 27, 2011:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from June 27, 2011 as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:50 PM

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Next meetings:

Monday, July 25, 2011

Monday, August 8, 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.