Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes September 26, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 26, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan, Jeremy Johnson, and Tom Mitchell.

Members Absent:  Mr. Hawk and Councilmember O’Keefe. 

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

Also Present:  Sabato Sagaria, Kent Jaquith, Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Brian Miller, Brice Corder, Cynthia Feidler, Sam Rogers.   

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

117 South Prospect Street – Sabato Sagaria- Application #2011-116

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a six (6’) foot

wood privacy fence to be located along the rear and side property lines, and installation

of a metal bollard. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Sabato Sagaria, Dan Rogers, Cynthia Feidler, Brice Corder, and later Barbara Franks.  

 

Discussion: 

Sabato Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, indicated the fence would have a finished look on both sides.  He indicated he would like to leave the fence unfinished.  Mr. Johnson asked if the fence would have any type of gate.  Mr. Sagaria indicated he is not proposing a gate, but he later changed his mind and added up to three potential gates to his application.  Mr. Mitchell noted the proposed fence doesn’t go between the two garages.  Mr. Sagaria stated it wouldn’t make sense for the fence to go between the two garages so he had it stop and start again at each end.  Mr. Sagaria stated his goal is to have the fence be located from the front of the back lot to the back front end of the neighbor’s garage.  He also stated the fence would be located entirely on his property.  Mr. Mitchell asked the reason for the metal bollard not being incorporated into the fence.  Mr. Sagaria stated he could make the bollard blend in with the fence if that is what the Planning Commission would like.  Mr. Sagaria stated the bollard would prevent people from destroying the fence.  He indicated he is proposing a round cylinder that is seven inches (7”) in diameter.  Ms. Terry stated the application indicates the bollard would be four foot (4’) high and the fence would be six foot (6’) high.  Mr. Mitchell indicated he is having difficulty picturing the bollard and the fence together.  He questioned if the fence starts after the bollard.  Mr. Sagaria stated yes.  He asked if the fence is abutting the bollard.  Mr. Sagaria stated no and it is maybe six inches (6”) away from the proposed bollard.  He indicated he would change this if the Planning Commission wished.  Mr. Johnson stated he believed a gate would be prohibitive to construct with the location of the proposed bollard.  He stated a gate could be attached to the first post.  Mr. Sagaria stated that if he needs to attach the fence to the bollard he would.  Mr. Burriss asked the reason for the gap between the fence and why it starts and stops again.  Mr. Sagaria stated he would be willing to take the fence back to the garage.  He went on to say that if the fence were to be straight it would come two feet into his driveway and take away from any maneuverability.  Mr. Sagaria stated he would be willing to angle the fence if need be and he would be willing to add fence in the corner of the garage on the west side so the fence goes over and across.  Mr. Mitchell stated a bollard does not seem appropriate to him for a residential area.  Mr. Sagaria stated he is willing to go with another recommendation, but he doesn’t want people to damage the fence.  He suggested he could encase the bollard in lumber.  Mr. Burriss asked the distance between the corner of the concrete curb and the proposed bollard.  Mr. Sagaria stated his guess is 102-105 inches.  Mr. Burriss asked if there would be any consideration in moving the bollard back.  He stated this is a tight dimension for a vehicle and if a gate is added it is even tighter.  Mr. Sagaria stated he would be opposed to moving the bollard back.  Mr. Mitchell asked how Mr. Sagaria turns a car around.  Mr. Sagaria stated he pulls in and backs up to the north to exit the driveway.  He clarified the curb doesn’t go all the way to the driveway to prevent him from turning around.

 

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street, stated he thinks the fence is a fabulous idea and they are “pro fence.”  Mr. Rogers stated the proposed bollard is six inches (6”) in diameter and he asked if the size of the fence post would be 4x4.  Mr. Ryan stated the application states the posts would be 6x6.  Mr. Rogers asked how deep the posts would be required to be in the ground.  Village Planner Terry stated the applicant is required to have the posts thirty-two inches (32”) in the ground.  Mr. Rogers stated the issue with this situation has always been the property line and this line is a major issue because “it is crimping to such a degree that I cannot finish the barn.”  He went on to explain that it wasn’t Mr. Sagaria’s doing for the location of the garage, but it was previous owners that built the building so close that it hangs over his building.  Mr. Rogers stated the water comes off the south roof so fast that it comes on the north wall of his barn and the barn almost fell down due to this.  Mr. Rogers stated this water issue has not been solved and the eaves are hanging over the property line.  Ms. Franks presented pictures to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan asked how this information is related to the fence.  Mr. Rogers stated this is relevant because you cannot access the area between the two accessory buildings without walking on both properties.  He stated that the location of the fence could pose a problem for long term maintenance.  Mr. Rogers stated a gate is a good idea for full access.  Mr. Sagaria stated he disagreed with Mr. Rogers about accessibility to the back of his garage.  Mr. Ryan stated the application has been amended to extend the fence in this rear area.  Mr. Rogers indicated he wants to ensure the proposed fence will not restrict access to his property or access to perform maintenance related issues.  He stated he has invested $250,000 in the barn and he wants to make sure he can maintain this structure.  Mr. Sagaria stated he is not suggesting Mr. Rogers won’t have access to his own property.  Mr. Rogers stated he wanted to cut the corner of his building because of accessibility issues that currently exist.  He stated the bollard addition means there will be a “full on box to get in there.”  Mr. Ryan asked why Mr. Sagaria would like the bollard placed in this particular location.  Mr. Sagaria stated the bollard would protect his fence.  Mr. Rogers suggested the bollard could be made out of metal, rather than concrete.  He stated a gate could be hung from the bollard post. 

 

Barbara Franks was sworn in by Mr. Ryan.  She stated the fence is a great idea.  Ms. Franks stated there were some things handed down by a judge regarding a court ordered professional survey and an order of no trespassing.  She stated Mr. Sagaria or his workers are not allowed to walk on her property and the holes for the posts must be completely dug on Mr. Sagaria’s property.  Ms. Franks stated Mr. Sagaria’s home is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District and the Planning Commission should consider if the proposed fence and bollard design are historical.  She stated bollards were not considered in 1894 when her house was built or 1910 when Mr. Sagaria’s house was built.  Ms. Franks asked for the Planner to read aloud the fence permit definition and criteria.  Ms. Franks stated she would also like to request that she be allowed to place a gate or start her fence at the area where the bollard is located.  The Planning Commission indicated they cannot give permission for Mr. Sagaria to allow Ms. Franks the use of any portion of the fence on his property.  Ms. Terry read aloud Section 1135.01, 47, Fence (definition) of the code.  She also indicated the Planning Commission would be reviewing the AROD criteria for this application.  Mr. Ryan reminded the parties that the Planning Commission cannot get involved in any personal issues regarding a court order.  He stated this is a civil matter and the Planning Commission is only charged with approval/denial of the aesthetics of the fence and if all of the setback requirements have been met.   

 

Cynthia Feidler stated the driveway is narrow for both parties and she has stopped using her driveway because of damage that occurred to her car twice.  Ms. Feidler stated they have one way in and out and the neighboring property has two ways to come and go on their property.  She indicated she has been harassed by the neighbor.  Law Director King reminded all parties that the only matter before the Planning Commission is the application for a fence.  He stated any other issues are considered to be civil matters between the two neighbors.  

 

Mr. Sagaria stated a survey of the property has been completed.  He read aloud an excerpt from the survey referring to lots 181, 182, 187, and 188.  Mr. Sagaria stated there is a pin in the front portion of the lot and a pin in the back.  Ms. Franks stated a judge has indicated that a middle pin has to be set and the survey Mr. Sagaria is referring to has only the four corners pinned.  Law Director King stated this information is not relevant to the Planning Commission in rendering a decision on the proposed fence.  Mr. Rogers stated Mr. Sagaria would have to be north of the property line for the installation of the foundations for the fence.  Ms. Franks stated this area is used for her ingress and egress and she wants to make sure the Planning Commission isn’t granting Mr. Sagaria permission to block her.  Mr. Mitchell reiterated that defining where the corner lot is - is a civil matter.  Ms. Terry stated there would be an inspection of the post holes and they do not inspect their location in relation to the property lines.  Mr. Johnson later clarified that the Village Planner only checks the depth of the post holes.  Ms. Franks stated that in theory Mr. Sagaria would be given permission to build a fence on her property.  Mr. Mitchell stated that if this were the case, Mr. Sagaria would be liable.  Ms. Terry explained the applicant is allowed to have a six foot (6’) high fence in the rear.  Ms. Franks stated she would like to make a suggestion that if Mr. Sagaria is building a privacy fence he should turn off his cameras.  Mr. Ryan asked for all comments to be directed to the Planning Commission and for only comments relevant to the installation of the fence be made.  Mr. Rogers asked if the Planning Commission has firmed up where the west point of the fence will end.  Mr. Ryan stated the Planning Commission has asked Mr. Sagaria to terminate the fence at his garage and he agreed.  He stated on the west side the fence would turn back to the building.  Mr. Rogers suggested a gate be installed.  Mr. Sagaria stated he had no plans for a gate, but he later changed and amended Exhibits A, B, and C to show the possibility for three gates to be installed.  Mr. Burriss asked for clarification on the two different styles of fence presented in the application.  Mr. Sagaria stated the fence would resemble the fencing shown on the bottom (second) picture.  Mr. Rogers asked if there could be one point of attachment for two fences in case he decides to install a fence.  He stated this would make the most sense, rather than having two or three poles in the same location.  Mr. Mitchell stated the Planning Commission doesn’t have an application for a fence before them for Mr. Roger’s property.  He stated they cannot consider the approval of a fence without an application.  Mr. Johnson agreed the Planning Commission cannot grant Mr. Rogers attachment rights to Mr. Sagaria’s proposed fence.  Mr. Rogers commented the police would be contacted if the fence is built on his property.  Law Director King indicated to Mr. Rogers that this would be a civil matter, not a police matter, and that the property owner's would need to go through an attorney for a restraining order if they determine that the fence is located on their property.  Law Director King indicated that it is not a zoning related issue or a police issue, it's a civil issue.  Mr. Burriss asked Mr. Sagaria if he would consider the fence post being used to “house” the bollard.  Mr. Sagaria stated that if this is a sticking point he would make the bollard look like a fence post.  Mr. Burriss stated the Planning Commission is charged with considering the architectural character of the neighborhood and there are some aesthetic concerns with the bollard as presented.  The rest of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.  Mr. Johnson stated the digging of the post hole location will have to be decided amongst the neighbors and they may have to be eighteen inches away from the property line to not have any portion of the fence on the neighboring property.  He reiterated this is between the two neighboring properties and not up to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burris indicated he would like to see a sealant on the proposed fence.  He stated the presented plan for a natural fence doesn’t seem like the “correct vocabulary.”  Mr. Burriss stated the fence is a major architectural element on the property.  Ms. Franks questioned how the fence would be painted without the applicant or his worker’s going on her property.  Mr. Sagaria stated the fence would be prepainted on both sides.  He also indicated that with future paint jobs he would take down the fence, paint it, and put it back up.  Mr. Mitchell stated that if the bollard function is incorporated into the fence post it should be similar in style to the balance of the other fence posts.  Mr. Sagaria agreed. 

 

Mr. Ryan indicated the Planning Commission has to be in agreement to each of the criteria.  Mr. Johnson stated with the incorporated bollard disguised, he can agree to the AROD criteria.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss agreed.

 

Mr. Burriss asked the applicant if he would agree to cap each of the fence posts as depicted in the bottom drawing.  Mr. Sagaria agreed.   Mr. Sagaria also agreed he has amended his application to request up to three, four foot swinging inward gates.  Mr. Burriss clarified he is unsure the gate on the side can be four foot wide.  The Planning Commission requested the fence panels to be of equal length.  Mr. Sagaria agreed.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-116:

 

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 fences with the amendments to finish the 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 with the proposed changes to finish the fence, the fence is appropriate. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the vitality is achieved by enhancing the property.    

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 #2011-116 with the following conditions:

1)         That the fencing installation is to adhere to remarks per Exhibit ‘A’;

2)         Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ depict the installation of three (3) gates, with the gate on     west property line to be 4 foot-wide and each gate is to be an in swinging gate;

3)         Exhibit ‘C’ (bottom - second drawing style) is the approved style for the fence;

4)         The bollard function to be incorporated into the fence post similar in style to the             balance of the fence posts; 

5)         All surfaces of the fence are to be painted or stained; and

6)         Each panel of fencing located on the south property line will be of equal length
Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-116:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

117 South Prospect Street – Sabato Sagaria- Application #2011-116

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

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

1)         New concrete steps with railings at the front of the structure

2)         Pergola to be located in the rear yard; and

3)         Replacement windows on the northern and southern side of the home

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Michael Sabato Sagaria. 

 

Discussion:

Sabato Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, stated the existing front steps do not go with the house and they are dangerous in the wintertime.  Cynthia Feidler agreed.  Mr. Sagaria distributed a design of a porch in German Village with the continuation of railings.  He stated a design such as this is more fitting for his home.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing to paint the front steps.  Mr. Sagaria stated no.  Mr. Burriss stated he is aware of one home in the Village where the stone steps were turned over and were able to be reused.  Mr. Mitchell indicated he would prefer to see the stone steps stay in place, but he is only one vote.  Mr. Sagaria was unsure on the type of steps he would like to use or the exact location for the railings.  The Planning Commission also discussed the location of the windows, as this was not depicted on a drawing for the application.  Mr. Sagaria agreed to get additional information to the Planning Commission on the steps, railings, and windows.  He asked to table this portion of the application.  Mr. Sagaria stated he would like to move forward with consideration for the pergola.  Mr. Johnson asked the type of wood Mr. Sagaria would like to use for the pergola.  Mr. Sagaria stated pressure treated lumber that would be painted in one year. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-116 (only for the pergola) other portions of application were tabled until a later meeting:

 

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 pergola is consistent with structures 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 a pergola is architecturally appropriate for this district.    

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated a pergola is an appropriate architectural element of our historic past.    

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2011-117 only regarding the pergola and to table the part of the application referring to approval for the replacement of steps and windows, and with the following conditions:

1)         The construction of the pergola would be with pressure treated lumber; and

2)         Pergola will be finished in white at the appropriate time. 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-116:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

951 Burg Street – Kent & Tammy Jaquith - Application #2011-118

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) (standards apply due to the size of the proposed structure)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of an addition on the front and eastern side of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Kent Jaquith. 

 

Discussion:

Kent Jaquith, 951 Burg Street, stated that he is before the Planning Commission for approval of an addition.  Mr. Mitchell asked what is the Planning Commission oversight for this project.  Ms. Terry explained the AROD criteria applies, but only as it relates to the addition because the addition is more than 20% of the gross livable area of the existing structure.  She indicated the rest of the home can be resided without Planning Commission approval.  Mr. Jaquith stated you cannot really see the home from Burg Street.  Ms. Terry stated the application meets all of the setback and height requirements.  Mr. Mitchell asked for a description of the proposed siding.  Mr. Jaquith stated they are contemplating using board and batten with cedar or Hardie-plank.  He stated he is leaning towards the use of cedar.  Mr. Ryan asked if the lantern lights would be used.  Mr. Jaquith stated this has been changed to be can lights only.  Mr. Jaquith explained the addition would come out a total of sixteen feet and allow for a foyer, bathroom, and closets.  He stated the board and batten would be broken up with the use of cedar plank and stone.  Mr. Johnson asked if the entire foundation would be split face block.  Mr. Jaquith stated yes, except for a small stone area on the front of the home.  Mr. Jaquith stated the porch would have a standing seam metal roof.  Mr. Johnson questioned if this could be interfaced due to water tightness.  Mr. Jaquith stated that there is also a change to his submitted application for the windows.  He stated the windows are currently shown as double hung windows, but this is not feasible for the closet.  He stated these windows would be shortened to look like the small windows on the drawing.  Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Jaquith is proposing a casement style window for all of the windows.  Mr. Jaquith stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated the applicant did not have to clarify if he would use the standing seam metal roof and the Planning Commission could approve the metal roof or a shingle roof.  The rest of the Planning Commission agreed.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-118:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the addition is consistent with other approvals for additions 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 addition is a benefit to the existing home. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burris stated the proposed detailing on the materials used are more historically correct than what is existing on the home.    

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-118 per exhibits ‘A’ and

B.’  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-118:  Mitchell (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Other Business:

Note: This agenda item is open to the public and is a public hearing.  All individuals will be permitted to speak regarding the review of this proposed Zoning Code revision.

 

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend various Sign Code provisions outlined in Section 1189, Table 1189b.  

 

Discussion:

No one spoke in regards to the public hearing. 

Ms. Terry stated the language in red is per the Planning Commission comments at the last meeting.  She asked for clarification from the Planning Commission regarding freestanding signs in the PCD (Planned Commercial District).  Ms. Terry reviewed the changes the Planning Commission recommended at the work session that all signs in this zoning district should be ground mounted.  She stated the signage for Arby’s and Bob Evans are ground mounted.  Ms. Terry asked if the Planning Commission wants to take this language out or leave it up to the applicant for the option to apply for either ground mounted or freestanding.  Mr. Ryan agreed this area (PCD) may change once the highway changes are made.  Mr. Mitchell stated he feels comfortable with the decision recommended at the last meeting.  Mr. Burriss stated he would not feel comfortable with a twelve foot high sign being applied for in this zoning district.  Ms. Terry indicated she has some additional information that could be helpful for the Planning Commission regarding signage in this zoning district.  The Planning Commission asked for Ms. Terry to present this information before they make a final decision on signage recommendations to the TCOD. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to table the sign recommendations and hold a second public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-116: Sam Sagaria; 117 South Prospect Street; 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 District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-116 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-116. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-117: Sam Sagaria; 117 South Prospect Street; Porch

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 #2011-117 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-117. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-118: Kent and Tammy Jaquith ; 951 Burg 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 #2011-118 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-118. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Motion to excuse absent Planning Commission member:

Mr. Johnson moved to excuse Steven Hawk from the Planning Commission meeting on September 26, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for September 12, 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from September 12, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:35 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, October 24, 2011

Monday, November 14, 2011

Monday, November 28, 2011

Monday, December 12, 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.