Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 23, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (Council Ex-Officio/Non-Voting), Doug Eklof (GEVSD Ex-Officio/Non-Voting) Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan, Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell.

Members Absent:  None. 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director; Debi Walker; Asst. to Planning Dept., Michael King, Assistant Law Director. 

Also Present: Kevin Reiner, Art Chonko, Sherrie Gardner, Sharon Sinsabaugh, Tim Klingler, Cheryl Houser, and Sabato Sagaria.   

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

New Business:

329 West Elm Street – Cheryl Houser- Application #2012-40

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the relocation and extension of a rear yard picket fence.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Cheryl Houser. 

Discussion:

 

Cheryl Houser, 329 West Elm Street, indicated she would like to move the location of the fence and extend it.  Ms. Terry indicated that the fence met all setback and height requirements as proposed. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-40: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the application is consistent with similar requests approved in the 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.

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

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-40 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-40:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

327 North Pearl Street – Ed and Donna Jenkins - Application #2012-42

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the addition of three (3 windows).  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry.  

Discussion:

The applicant was not present to speak regarding the application.  Mr. Hawk asked why the applicant could not attend the meeting.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant received the proper notice regarding the date and time of the Planning Commission meeting and they have been through the approval process in years past.  Mr. Mitchell indicated this seems like a straight forward application.  Ms. Terry reviewed the application with the Planning Commission.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the windows are new.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Hoyt asked if it is mandatory for the applicant to appear before the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated it is not mandatory, but highly encouraged in case there are questions presented by members of the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss stated they would typically see an elevation drawing/picture of the entire elevation where the windows are proposed.  The Planning Commission agreed they would like to see a drawing of the entire wall and where the windows would be located on this side of the home. 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Motion to Table Application #2012-42.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2012-42:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  

240 West Broadway – Denison University - Application #2012-44

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a portion of the existing delaminating slate roof and re-roofing with asphaltic shingles.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Art Chonko. 

Discussion:

Art Chonko, 420 East Broadway, indicated they need to replace a section of the roof over the art gallery.  Mr. Chonko stated he is presenting dimensional asphaltic shingles in Estate Gray.  He explained a portion of the building would have slate remaining, but it is possible this will change to shingles in the future.  Mr. Chonko stated there have been internal discussions on the future of the building and they prefer to fix only what is needed at this time.  Mr. Mitchell asked why the applicant is not proposing to put slate back on the structure.  Mr. Chonko stated there is a significant cost difference of  $45,000 compared to $7,000.  Mr. Chonko stated he believes this is the original roof from the 1960’s and they quickly need to address leakage in the gallery area.  He stated the long-term existence and use of the building is in question.  Mr. Burriss stated the Planning Commission recently reviewed a proposal from Granville Schools, and they presented a partial roof replacement using composite slate.  He asked if this was considered by the applicant?  Mr. Chonko stated composite slate would still be three times the cost of asphalt shingles.  Mr. Chonko stated when one pulls off of Broadway and enters the building, they would not be able to see any area on the building where the asphalt shingles would be next to the existing slate.  Mr. Ryan stated he is hearing the applicant state asphalt shingles are the best solution for them moving forward.  Mr. Chonko agreed and stated it doesn’t make sense to make the investment in slate.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant has looked at the cost to repair the existing slate.  Mr. Chonko stated they have been doing repairs the past few years and this is no longer working.  Mr. Chonko stated they would match any future repairs to the Estate Gray asphalt shingles, and any cost beyond asphalt shingles is a budgetary issue at this point.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the original plans for the structure called for a metal roof in one area.  Ms. Chonko stated he was unsure.  Mr. Chonko stated he feels the asphalt shingles match the existing roof better than synthetic shingles would.  Mr. Mitchell stated it is hard for him to believe a synthetic shingle would look more like slate than synthetic slate or real slate.  Mr. Chonko stated it costs much more.  Ms. Hoyt stated there are multiple buildings in the Village which have multiple roofing materials and this is not unprecedented.  Mr. Mitchell agreed and stated it also isn’t necessarily the most attractive solution.  Mr. Chonko suggested that if the Planning Commission found the new roof to be offensive they could look at replacing the remaining part of the roof for the next budget cycle.  Mr. Mitchell indicated this is a prominent building located in the AROD. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-44: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated this is consistent with other projects – including First Baptist Church. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss, Mr. Hawk, and Ms. Hoyt stated a new roof would contribute to the use of the structure. Ms. Hoyt indicated she is skeptical about the upgrading of the historical character.  Mr. Mitchell stated he does not agree.   

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the usability is protected with a new roof.   

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated this building has been in use since the 1960’s.     

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-44 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-44:  Burriss (no), Mitchell (no), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-2.  

219 West Broadway – Kevin Reiner - Application #2012-45

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a stone wall, a low stone retaining wall, stone edging at ground level along the driveway and an iron gate in the rear yard. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Kevin Reiner, and Sherrie Gardner. 

Discussion:

Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, distributed some additional pictures to the Planning Commission.  He stated this is a continuation of items he had approved previously through the Village and Planning Commission.  Mr. Reiner stated he overlooked that some of the work started while he was away traveling was not included in a previous approval by the Planning Commission.  Therefore, he stated he received a stop work order and the Village staff was very gracious in explaining why work had to cease.  Mr. Reiner stated the wall is six feet tall (6’) and ten foot (10’) wide.  He stated he is proposing an iron gate that would be connected to the stone wall, but he may change his mind on this and not install the gate.  Mr. Reiner stated the studio/greenhouse was inspired by Monticello and the wall inspired by the Granville Inn.  Mr. Reiner stated the cap would be like the stone wall at the Inn, but scaled to the size of his property.  Mr. Reiner stated there is a 2 ¼ inch cap.  Mr. Burriss asked if there is something planned for the front face of the wall.  Mr. Reiner stated the thought is to have a historical troth to act as a planter on the ground or maybe a spout/fountain out of the wall.  Mr. Burriss asked if there is any additional proposed lighting.  Mr. Reiner stated no, there is lighting on the existing house and they are all historical copper made in Massachusetts.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant did a great job in his explanation and the application does meet height requirements and can be installed on the property line.  Mr. Mitchell stated he is unclear as to what would be done on the front of the wall and this elevation is most visible from the street.  Mr. Reiner stated it would be all stone with a rectangular troth made from sandstone and he could present pictures of a carving he plans to have done in the front area next to the troth.    

Sherrie Gardner, 216 West Elm Street, stated she is an admirer of Kevin Reiner’s designs and she has often given support and testimony on projects he has completed.  Ms. Gardner stated she is not in favor of the work that was recently done, especially without approval by the Village.  Ms. Gardner stated regarding the back of her property - “it looks as though I have a fireplace coming out from my garage.”  She stated the new detached structure sits five feet (5’) off of her garage.  Ms. Gardner stated she failed to comprehend how immense the new structure would be in regards to height.  She stated the variance for the placement of the structure sits five to eight feet (5’-8’) from her garage.  She added she did not report to the Planning Commission that this unauthorized wall had been built.  Furthermore, Ms. Gardner stated she does not want the wall because it can be an impediment for fire equipment needing to reach the rear structure in case of a fire.  She stated there have been garages which have burned down in this area in the past.  She stated Mr. Reiner violated good will and with his occupation he should have been aware this would be a problem.  Ms. Gardner stated the Village should not be rewarding anyone who circumvents the process and there are other multiple KRD projects in the Village.  She stated it is not enough for the applicant to ask forgiveness later after they have already violated the intent of the permit.  Ms. Gardner asked the intended use for the detached structure.  She stated she has been told by neighbors that Mr. Reiner has paneled the inside of the structure and placed a chandelier in there for his office staff.  She inquired as to whether any commercial use would be a violation of Village code?  Ms. Gardner stated she would also like to know about the lot coverage that was supposed to be 57%.  Mr. Ryan asked the applicant how they would access the studio?  Mr. Reiner stated from the patio by a pea gravel walkway or the driveway.  He went on to say this building is a studio where they create and he does have some people who help him and stop by.  He stated he does work from his home and he is aware of other properties where there are home offices – such as, 339 West Broadway, James Hale, 221 West Broadway, 203 West Broadway, and there is a working studio at the Sinsabaugh’s.  Ms. Terry stated home occupation businesses are allowed, but no outside employees are allowed with home occupations.  Ms. Terry stated regarding the lot coverage everything was included in the calculations and Mr. Reiner is ok with lot coverage requirements after her review.  She added gravel areas are not counted towards impervious surface coverage as water can infiltrate through and this is not considered to be an impervious structure.  Mr. Hawk asked if the applicant received the required variances from the BZBA.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed materials used and the landscaping layering, he feels are appropriate elements to continue what is already happening along the driveway.  He stated he likes the appearance of the wall and it hides the new structure built back there.  He stated they have had a good history from this applicant.   He stated he would trust the Village Planner with final review of the capping and reviewing a photograph of how the applicant will finish the front part of the wall.  Mr. Reiner stated he would like to apologize to Ms. Gardner for the construction process and noise.  He added he is sorry Ms. Gardner does not love the wall.  Ms. Gardner asked if the gate would be locked.  Mr. Reiner stated he does not intend to lock the gate.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-45: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated this is consistent with other projects we have 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 the materials are historically appropriate.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the vitality of the garden is contributing to the vitality of the entire district. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated this is a historically correct proposal.  

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2012-45 with the stipulation that details regarding the cap of the wall and water element are presented to the Village Planner.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-45: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business:

Application #2012-32: Dan Rogers; 119 South Prospect Street; Privacy Fence

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be inconsistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their denial of Application #2012-32 as submitted by the applicant. 

Discussion:

Ms. Terry stated due to the complexity with the items in this application at the last meeting, Assistant Law Director King was asked to complete the Findings of Fact for the Planning Commission.  She stated she needs the Planning Commission to review the proposed Findings of Fact and see if there is anything they feel should be added, removed, or modified.  Mr. Burriss asked for the emergency egress hardware reference to be made part of the Findings of Fact.  He stated the applicant also referred to the gate as being a handicap entrance.  Councilmember Johnson stated the applicant was asked if there would be additional lighting and the applicant indicated only if the building department required this.  Mr. Hawk indicated it should be noted in the Findings of Fact that the applicant was given the opportunity to table the application so that they could have legal representation to help address questions raised by the Planning Commission and the applicant declined this proposal.     

Mr. Mitchell move to amend the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-32 as follows: 

"Item 21.  The application was submitted showing emergency egress hardware on one of the gates.  The applicant testified during the hearing that the hardware was required by the Licking County Building Department and the Planning Commission determined that the installation of emergency egress hardware on a gate was not a typical detail for a privacy fence request. 

Item 22.  The Planning Commission offered the applicant the opportunity to table the application in order to retain legal counsel to address some of the questions that he declined to answer during the meeting, and the applicant declined. 

Item 21 becomes Item 23.” 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.   Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the AMENDED Findings of Fact for Application #2012-32.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (abstain), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  4-0. 

Mr. Ryan questioned when an abstention from voting is appropriate.  Assistant Law Director King stated if a Planning Commission member feels they have enough information to reach an opinion it is their duty to vote.  He stated “that being said, no member can be compelled to vote.” 

New Business:

Application #2012-40: Cheryl Houser; 335 West Elm 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 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-40 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-40. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2012-44: Denison University; 240 West Broadway; Roof Replacement

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 Institutional District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-44 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-44. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (no), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (no), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-2. 

Application #2012-45: Kevin Reiner; 219 West 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-45 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-45. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for April 9, 2012:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from April 9, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 5-0.

Other Matters:

Ms. Terry reviewed testimony procedures with the Planning Commission.  She stated the Planning Commission can request testimony be limited to less than five minutes if there are multiple people present to testify and if someone has already spoken in regards to testimony on the record, the Planning Commission can request this information not be restated, but rather that new information could be shared.  Ms. Terry stated this board is acting as a quasi-judicial board.  She explained testimony can be given by an interested party and anyone else who demonstrated that they would be impacted by the application in question.  Ms. Terry stated someone who was not permitted to speak by the Planning Commission has the right to appeal to the Village Council.  Assistant Law Director King advised that if it’s a close call – he would allow someone to speak.  Ms. Terry added non-voting members (Councilmember Johnson and Mr. Eklof) can participate in the discussion of all applications.  Ms. Terry made the Planning Commission aware of a complaint received at the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan at the previous Village Council meeting.  She stated this individual stated staff and/or Planning Commission have made the planning process difficult and have treated residents “rudely.”  When questioned by the Planning Commission about who made these statements, Councilmember Johnson indicated the individual who spoke was Bill Wernet.  He stated members of Village Council and Manager Stillwell did not agree with Mr. Wernet’s comments.  He added many on Council were complimentary of staff and indicated they had not witnessed rudeness.  He indicated Mr. Wernet was not able to provide any specific information on when and why individuals felt that they were treated rudely.  Councilmember Johnson stated he knows individuals are not always pleased with the outcome of their request and he does feel they are in the process of making the zoning code more "friendly".  

Mr. Ryan indicated he would like to move forward and stated the information provided by Assistant Law Director King at the previous meeting was excellent and well done.  He stated Mr. King did a good job researching the facts and thanked him for his work.  Mr. Hawk asked about the retention schedule for Village emails.  Ms. Terry stated she would check with the retention specialist, Mollie Prasher, and get back to him with this information.

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, asked if there are any guidelines in place on audience members becoming rude.  Assistant Law Director King explained the presiding officers have the discretion to deal with these types of situations.   

Adjournment:  8:38 PM

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

Next meetings:

Monday, May 14, 2012

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

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.