Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes June 6, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 6, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  Steven Hawk.

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

Also Present: Bryon Reed, Brian Miller, Herach Naarian, Jane Wilken, Richard Crawford, and David Johnson.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

200 North Mulberry Street – Denison University - Application #2011-44

Village Institutional District (VID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of a concrete walk

and steps with stone pavers from the southern entrance to the College Street sidewalk.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Jane Wilken.

 

Discussion:

Jane Wilken, 474 Glyn Tawel Drive, stated that she is representing Denison University for the proposed changes noted in the application.  Ms. Wilken stated that the proposal for a new sidewalk is in character with the rest of the architecture on the home.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the proposed walkway material is slippery.  Ms. Wilken stated no. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-44:

 

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 changes with the sidewalk are consistent with other sidewalks in the Village. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

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 change.

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 materials are appropriate. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-44 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

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

 

384 East Broadway – Terra Nova Partners - Application #2011-46

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new single family structure on

Lot 1. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Herach Nazarian, David Johnson, and Bryon Reed.

 

Discussion:

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, Terra Nova Partners, stated that they are submitting their plans for approval for the two structures located where the parking lot is next to the Granville Inn.  He stated that the work session with the Planning Commission was very beneficial to them and they were able to modify some of the elevations and receive feedback on architectural detailing.  Mr. Reed stated that they are moving both homes up because of the driveway and in return they hope to save all of the pine trees between them and the York Apartments in the rear.  Mr. Reed indicated that once they surveyed the property they became aware that there is much more right of way than what was originally anticipated.  He stated that they only needed 38 feet and this would align them with the Granville Inn.  Mr. Reed stated that they originally applied for 55 feet for the right of way.  Ms. Terry stated that she and staff took measurements of the height for adjacent properties – Granger Street apartments, the school administration building, College Townhouse apartments, and the Granville Inn.  She indicated that they did not take measurements for the single family homes across the street because she didn’t think they would be taller than the measurements that were taken.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant did modify the proposed height of their structures to meet code requirements.  She added that this height is much more appropriate to the rest of the house and this was a modification from the original staff report.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant originally had proposed a seven foot (7’) vinyl fence, which they reduced to six feet (6’) to meet code requirements.  Furthermore, she stated that the proposed trellis at nine foot (9’) was removed because of it being within the side yard setback.  Mr. Johnson questioned the calculation for the height measurement to get an average.  Ms. Terry noted a mistake in the staff report, and indicated that the height can be within 10% overage and the applicant would still meet the code requirements.  She recalculated the average height of structures in the area.   

 

Mr. Burriss stated that the slope and gables are consistent to the house and other structures in the area.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Mitchell agreed.  Mr. Burriss stated that he doesn’t think that this structure would be appropriate with a lower roof and the architectural details are appropriate elements for Granville.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the look of the home would be less attractive with any roof other than what was proposed by the applicant.  Mr. Ryan stated that the height is appropriate when you consider the distance of the College Townhouse and the massing of nearby structures.  Mr. Ryan noted that one of the buildings used in the calculation to determine height is the administration building across the street and it has a flat roof – unlike any other structure in the area.  Mr. Burriss agreed and stated that “this building has the least amount of  characteristics of any other structures in the Village.”  Mr. Burriss complimented the applicant on the thoroughness and professionalism of their proposal.  He thanked them for working with the Planning Commission in prior work sessions to ultimately achieve a nice addition to the Village.  Mr. Burriss questioned that if on rear elevation the gable detailing could be repeated so that the window would appear twice in the same elevation.  He stated that the second floor has an architectural element that could be made stronger.  Mr. Reed stated that the area Mr. Burriss is referring to would be used for storage purposes and there was purposefully no window due to storage.  He added that not many people would  be able to see back in this area.  Herach Nazarian stated that they could do trim in this area to make it look like shutters that are closed.  Mr. Mitchell suggested a louver similar to the other louver used on the home.  The Planning Commission and Mr. Reed and Mr. Nazarian agreed to place a louver on the rear elevation to the right of the window.  Mr. Johnson asked if the downspouts would be day lighted.  Mr. Nazarian stated that they would be hard piped.  Mr. Burriss stated that the massing for these structures is appropriate.  The Planning Commission agreed.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-46:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed structure is stylistically compatible and consistent with other approvals.

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 design with a high level of architectural detailing and appropriateness of design presentation.     

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 proposal by the applicant.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this area will be filled in with architectural appropriate housing which is an example of how past generations lived. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-46 with the condition that the applicant add a louver to the rear elevation second story that is similar to other louvers to be placed on the house. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

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

 

384 East Broadway – Terra Nova Partners - Application #2011-47

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new single family structure on

Lot 2. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, David Johnson, Herach Nazarian, and Bryon Reed.

 

Discussion:

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, Terra Nova Partners, was available to address any concerns of the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission discussed that they would also like to see the same louver detailing on the south elevation that they requested for the Lot 1 home.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the location of the windows on the third floor is a unable attic.  Mr. Nazarian stated that this would just be used for insulation.  The Planning Commission clarified that the sidewalk would be from Granger Street to the front entrance.  Ms. Terry verified that this was true.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there is room for two cars to go in/out at the same time.  Mr. Reed stated that that the driveway width will only allow for one car to ingress/egress at the same time.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-47:

 

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 change is stylistically compatible and consistent with other structures that have previously been 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 applicant is proposing a design with a high level of architectural detailing.

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 proposal in the core business district.

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 #2011-47 with the condition that the applicant place a louver similar to the louver design in Application #2011-46 in the rear elevation second story.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

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

 

223 South Main Street – Richard Crawford - Application #2011-48

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

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

1)         Roof:  Remove 3-tab asphalt shingles and replace with dimensional asphaltic shingles; and

2)         Windows:  Remove existing windows and replace with vinyl windows   

 

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

 

Discussion:

Richard Crawford, 223 South Main Street, stated that the improvements he is proposing at this property show little impact on the environmental and visual impact on the home.  He stated that is would like to do replacement vinyl windows in the existing wood frame.  Mr. Crawford stated that the shingle he is proposing is more historically in keeping with the district.  He stated that he would like to reroof the existing original structure – simple gable and not the other elevations that cannot be seen from the street.  Mr. Mitchell clarified that Mr. Crawford is saying that he is not going to reroof the entire structure.  Mr. Crawford stated that was correct, and he would reroof the original structure up to the valleys where the gable in the back connects and he would reroof the porches.  Mr. Crawford indicated that 3 tab asphalt shingles are currently on the roof.  Mr. Crawford indicated that he would prefer to install the black stone slate shingle provided as an example in the Planning Commission packets.  Mr. Burriss stated that he wasn’t clear on the options Mr. Crawford is presenting for the picture window.  He stated that the Planning Commission would need to see an example of the window Mr. Crawford would like to install.  Mr. Crawford explained that he is unsure at this time so he is not proposing any changes to this window.  The Planning Commission explained that Mr. Crawford could amend his application and come back if he finds a particular window that he would like to install.  Otherwise, the Planning Commission made it clear that they would be approving a plain glass window for the picture window.  Mr. Crawford asked for some flexibility on the options for the transom window above the picture window.  He indicated that he would come back to the Planning Commission with the specific window.  He stated that he may request to put stained glass or something else in this area. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-48:

 

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 changes are stylistically compatible and consistent with other approvals in this Village district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district and livability is enhanced from the proposed changes.

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 recommend approval of Application #2011-48 with the condition that the applicant’s windows on the south elevation be plain glass; that vinyl window sashes be in white; and that the roofing material be black stone slate shingles.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-44: Denison University; 200 North Mulberry Street; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-44 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-44. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-46 AMENDED: Terra Nova Partners; 384 East Broadway; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1187 Height Area and Yard Modifications, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-46 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-46.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-47 AMENDED: Terra Nova Partners; 384 East Broadway; 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 Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-47 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-47. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-48: Richard Crawford; South Main Street; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-48 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-48. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for May 9, 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from May 9, 2011 as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Planning Commission Member:

Mr. Mitchell moved to excuse Steven Hawk from the Planning Commission meeting on June 6, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:03 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, June 13, 2011

Monday, June 27, 2011

Monday, July 11, 2011 (Jeremy Johnson 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.