Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 9, 2014

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Doug Eklof, Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Tom Mitchell (Chair), Bill Wilken and Craig Potaracke (non-voting)

 

Staff Present: Planner Alison Terry and Law Director Mike King

 

Also Present: Stephanie Kuntz, Chris Kuntz, Ned Roberts, John Klauder, Jeremy Johnson, Pete Confar, Mark Keith, Sara Lee, Molly Thurlow-Collen, and James Browder.

 

Citizens’ Comments

As no one appeared to speak, Chair Mitchell closed Citizens Comments.

 

New Business:

 

125 West Elm Street – Stefanie and Chris Kuntz - Application #2014-60

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a 48” picket fence with gates in the rear and side yards and lattice work below the rear deck.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Stephanie Kuntz. 

 

Discussion:

Mr. Mitchell confirmed with the applicant that the finished side of the fence would be faced toward the neighbor.  The applicant responded in the affirmative.

 

Planner Terry asked the applicant if the fence would abut the arbor on the south side of the structure.  The applicant responded in the affirmative.

 

Planner Terry advised that a portion of the arbor was on the applicant’s property.  Both homeowners were trying to resolve that issue.  Mr. Hawk asked if the Planning Commission approved the arbor.  Planner Terry indicated the Planning Commission did approve the arbor, but was not responsible for evaluating surveys to assure that property lines were accurate. 

 

Mr. Hawk asked what materials would be used for the lattice work under the deck.  Mrs. Kuntz responded that vinyl lattice would be used and a Timber Tech product would be used for the decking.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-60:

 

a)               Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed fence is consistent with similar projects approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

b)               Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated the fence is in keeping with the architecturally historic nature of the Village.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

c)               Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the improvement of the residence contributes to the vitality of the District.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)               Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated the fence is an architectural element consistent with the way past generations lived in Granville.    All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-60 as presented.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-60: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

344 Summit Street – Ned Roberts on behalf of Chris Diebold - Application #2014-68

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

The request is for review and approval of deteriorating stone steps and replacement with wood steps on the front of the home.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Ned Roberts. 

 

Discussion:

Mr. Roberts indicated that he was carpenter for this project.  The stone steps being removed were not original to the house and were now so deteriorated that they were unsafe, especially in the winter time.  The steps would be removed and replaced with solid wood steps in the same footprint.  The sides, base and riser would be made of wood, while the treads would be Timber Tech.  The final steps would be painted grey to match the house.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the steps would have any hang over.  Mr. Roberts stated that there would be a ¾” overhang on the front and sides of the steps.  The steps would be 1” thick.

 

Mr. Mitchell commented that the historical accuracy of these new wooden steps would not be as accurate as the sandstone steps.  Mr. Wilken commented that many of the original homes would have had wooden steps.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-68:

 

a)               Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the steps and materials are stylistically compatible and consistent with other structures that have previously been approved in the district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

b)               Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that other houses in the same time period have steps of similar materials and nature.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

c)               Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by adding to the safety of the steps and improvement of the house it contributes to the vitality of the District.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)               Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is protecting the physical surroundings by using appropriate materials and improving the safety of the steps.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-68 as presented.  Second by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-68: Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

204 West Broadway – John Klauder Associates on behalf of Denison University - Application #2014-69

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a bluestone patio and two bluestone walkways in the west gardens.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and John Klauder. 

 

Discussion:

Mr. Klauder was asked by President and Mrs. Wineberg to restructure the private family patio at Monomoy Place.  The existing brick patio is sinking and breaking up.  The new design would be an irregularly shaped bluestone for the patio and two smaller walkways to an air conditioning unit and the faucet.   The walkway to the faucet on the front of the home was added after the submission of the original application.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if the newest drawing provided was different from the original drawing provided in the packet.  Mr. Klauder responded in the affirmative.  The new drawing has changes to the types of landscape plants, which would not impact this application.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-69:

 

a)               Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District? 

            Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed patio materials are consistent with similar projects approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

b)               Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated the patio is in keeping with the architecturally historic nature of the Village.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

c)               Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by improving the vitality of the residence that improves the vitality of the District.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)               Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated the patio is an architecturally, historic element consistent with the way past generations lived in Granville.    All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-69 presented.  Second by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-69: Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Old Business

 

314, 334, 384 East Broadway – Robertson Construction Services, Inc. - Application #2014-33

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of exterior remodeling and site modifications.

 

Exterior Modifications to the Granville Inn:

1)       Roofing: Thermoplastic Polyolefin (TPO) single-ply roofing on the second and third floors;

2)      Roof flashings:  New flashing will be copper at the slate locations;

3)      Siding:  Stucco, painted with a heavy dash finish and the color close to sandstone;

4)      Windows:  Pella architect series, double hung and casement styles per elevations;

5)      Doors:

         a.   Removal of existing second story window and replacement with a single door and

               sidelights on the western elevation of the carriage house for the purpose of

               emergency egress;

         b.   Carriage House Garage Doors:  Removal of existing doors and replacement with

               custom painted wood doors with an operable decorative surface hinge;

6)      Trim & Mouldings:  Wood trim painted dark brown;

7)      Dormers:  New dormers on the third floor east and west elevations;

8)      Railings:

         a.  Back of Carriage House:  Black painted galvanized metal handrail;

         b.  West side of Carriage House:  Black painted galvanized metal handrail;

         c.  East side of Granville Inn:  Black painted galvanized metal handrail;

9)      Outdoor Dining Fence Enclosure:  36” high wrought iron metal fencing painted

         black;

10)    Awning:  Removal of awning over the outdoor patio area;

11)    Metal wall surrounding rear mechanical units:  Centria product, opaque metal screen

12)    Stone wall at the eastern stairway to the basement:  Repurposed ashlar sandstone

         with cap and ornaments from the existing stone wall on the property which is being

         removed

13)    Area Well (East Elevation):  Hot dipped galvanized, non-slip rectangular grate,

         flush with grade;

14)    East Elevation:  Metal exhaust louver on third floor

15)    North Elevation:  Second floor relocation of an existing wood louver; and

16)    Rear Elevator Shaft:  Stucco finish with metal coping at the top of the shaft, no

         exterior access.

 

 

 

Site Modifications to the Granville Inn and College Town House Properties:

1)          Fence:  (Along the north property line of the College Town House) Combination of low stone wall and wood fencing;

2)          Pedestrian Walkway from East parking lot at the College Town House to the front

entrance of the Granville Inn:  Broom finished concrete;

3)      Granville Inn Carriage House front courtyard:  Concrete with broom finish and a    

         two course brick inlay detail (8”);

4)      Granville Inn East Service Drive:  eliminated and returned to lawn area;

5)      College Town House New Service Drive and Parking Areas:  Broom finished

         concrete;

6)      Wall:  Removal of a section of the north-south wall between the Granville Inn and

         College Town House;

7)      Parking lot and pedestrian lighting:  ‘Granville’ prismatic glass acorn top with leaf

         ballast casting, metal halide lamp on a 12’ Charleston cast aluminum pole painted

        ‘Granville’ dark green;

8)      Ground/Building Lighting (Granville Inn): Black metal halide, Kim Lighting; and

9)      Raised elevation within the entry drive of the Granville Inn:  Raised grade at the

         entrance to allow for handicap accessible entry.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry, Jeremy Johnson, Pete Confar and Mark Keith.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Confar provided a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed renovations to the Granville Inn.  He indicated ideas suggested at the previous Planning Commission work session were incorporated into this presentation.  The site plan was still the same with a new access point coming from the College Town House to the back of the Inn.  The former narrow eastern driveway would be removed.  Other parking areas would stay the same with new striping and lighting.  A request was being made for approval of two versions of the parking site plan:   1) the driveway grade would be raised five-feet (5’) allowing the drive and entrance to the Inn to be on one level; 2) a version where the driveway and grade would remain as is.  The request was for approval of both options from the Planning Commission that way the Ohio Historic Preservation Office could also review both options and determine which was more appropriate historically.   Receiving approval of each version would allow for a decision from the OHP office as well as an evaluation of the cost of each version by the development team.  The change in the driveway grade was to make access to the Inn as ADA compliant and convenient as possible both inside and out.

 

The Planning Commission was not in support of the proposed location of handicapped parking in the overflow lot.  They wanted the handicapped parking moved to its current location near the entrance.  The Commission felt that any other location would create customers undo distress.  Possible alternative suggestions were made by the Commission. Mr. Confar indicated that the current handicapped parking spaces were not sized to code.  The OHP indicated that they wanted the staggered, median parking to remain the same.  Currently, handicapped individuals must park and maneuver around three sides of the building to access the handicapped entrance.  The new configuration would either allow the handicapped individual to be dropped off level with the entrance, if the entry way grade version was approved, or to park and cross a portion of the parking lot to a new handicapped entrance ramp behind the front door area.  Handicapped parking would not be viable near the entrance if the increase graded entrance were approved because the parking would then be on a slant.  Reconfiguring the median parking area to make it ADA complaint and compliant with the Village code may not be permitted by the OHP.  If the parking spaces were maintained at their current location, made ADA and code compliant, it would require a variance and several parking spaces would be lost.  The median area would also need to be reconfigured. It was suggested that the Granville Inn, in years past, offered to valet park cars for patrons who just pulled up to the entrance and honked.  The Commission asked that the architect check with the OHP to see if closer handicapped parking could be accommodated should the graded entry way not be selected.  The Commission acknowledged that the architect and Robertson Construction had taken most of their suggestions and comments into consideration already and explained the rationale behind the decisions presented.  The Commission recommended that consideration be given by the Granville Inn management to accommodate parking through a valet service for handicapped individuals.  

 

Mr. Confar indicated that several wall designs were generated to shield the new parking lot at the rear of the building.  The designs included a six-foot tall, straight wall with timbers, a straight, wall with stone, a step down wall with timbers and a step down wall with stone.   A variance could be required for at least one of the options because the fence and retaining wall combination would extend above the total six-foot limit.  Adjacent homeowners Sara Lee and Molly Thurlow-Collen expressed their concerns that without an extension of a wall, they were concerned about trash, noise and people coming onto their property.  The homeowners expressed their support for the step down wall with a timber base, located five-feet from the property line. They also requested that landscaping be provided to shield the fence.  The Commission recommended the step down wall with the timber base.  The homeowners agreed.  It was also determined that western Arborvitae should be installed on the northern side of the wall to shield their view of the wall on the homeowner’s side of the property.  The Commission and homeowners agreed. 

 

Mr. Hawk questioned the difference in foot-candles from one parking lot to another as one parking lot will be brighter than another.   Mr. Confar indicated that the goal was not to use too many poles and lights.  The larger lot was working with 1.5 foot-candles.  In the western parking lot, there were currently four poles and the staff was struggling to reduce the number of poles to two poles, causing a difference in lighting.  They were looking at different wattage to make the lighting more uniform.  Mr. Hawk indicated that he would like to see the lighting more uniform.  Mr. Confar indicated that they hoped to use lights and wattage to maintain equal lighting levels.  Mr. Mitchell suggested using shielded globes to diminish light pollution. 

 

Regarding elevations, Mr. Confar indicated that there were no changes from the previous submittal to the south elevations.   There were changes made to the west elevation.  The emergency egress was originally shown as being predominately interior with the exit at the back side of the building with a walkway to the front.  Due to Planning Commission discussions, changes were made to return to an emergency exit similar to the existing metal stairway exit.  The elevated exit stairway would still be used with an exit door and ends at the other side of the stone wall.  Mr. Wilkin questioned the use of an elevated exit as the Planning Commission required St Luke’s to use something more attractive than an elevated, metal stairway.  Mr. Confar indicated that the internal exit intruded into the neighbor’s backyard.   Planner Terry indicated that this exit impacted an adjoining neighbor.  Mr. Browder agreed with the elevated design; however, he expressed concerns with other items.   He was concerned about light emanating from the hallway through the exit doorway, the exterior lighting emanating from the rooms, the “X” bracing on the stairway frame and the design of the windows and door.  Mr. Confar indicated that the design of the windows and door would be the same as the remaining building and was being dictated by the OHP.  The exit door would have a window, but the window could be translucent, which would diminish the light that shone through.  The windows would have curtains on the interior and the door could also have a curtain.  The “X” bracing on the stairway was needed to provide stability to the stairway.  However, Mr. Confar indicated that he would check the design to see if bracing was needed or if a horizontal bracing could be utilized. 

 

Mr. Burriss suggested that three stone piers be added to the wrought iron fence design around the front patio.  Mr. Confar agreed with that suggestion.  However, he indicated that the piers would have to meet OHP approval.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he thought there was a photograph showing such piers from earlier in the twentieth century.  Mr. Confar stated that such a photograph would be helpful in presenting this request to the OHP.

 

The Commission thanked Mr. Confar, Mr. Keith and Mr. Johnson for their thorough and well done presentation.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-33:

 

a)                                   Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District

            Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed renovations and additions are consistent with similar

            projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

b)               Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated the renovations and additions are in keeping with the architecturally historic nature of the Village.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

c)               Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the renovations and additions to a major social and economic member of the community add to the vitality of the community.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)               Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated the additions and extensive restoration of the Inn is consistent with the way past generations lived in Granville.    All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-33 presented.  Second by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-33: Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

 

Application #2014-60: Stefanie & Chris Kuntz, 125 West Elm Street, Picket 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-60 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-60. Second by Mr. Burriss.

Roll Call Vote: Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-60: Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-68: Ned Roberts on behalf of Chris Diebold, 344 Summit Street, Wood Step Installation    Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

 

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-68 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-68. Second by Mr. Eklof.

Roll Call Vote: Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-68: Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).   Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-69: John Klauder Associates on behalf of Denison University, 204 West Broadway, Patio Installation   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, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-69 as amended to include the additional bluestone walkway to the faucet.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-69. Second by Mr. Burriss.

Roll Call Vote: Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-69: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes).   Motion carried 5-0.

 

Old Business:

 

Application #2014-33: Robertson Construction Services, Inc. on behalf of the Historic Granville Inn, 314, 334, 384 East Broadway, Exterior Remodeling   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 Business District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District,  Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading, and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-33 as amended:

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-33. Second by Mr. Eklof.

Roll Call Vote: Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-33: Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes).   Motion carried 5-0.

 

Other Business:

 

            Note: These agenda items are open to the public and are public hearings.  All individuals will be permitted to speak regarding the review of these proposed Zoning Code revisions.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to table review of the code revisions.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion passed 5-0.

 

            Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1176.04 and 1176.05 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to the Transportation Corridor Overlay District Standards

 

            Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to enact Chapter 719,  Sections 719.01, 719.02.02, 719.03, 719.04, 719.05, 719.06, 719.07, 719.09, 719.10, 719.11 and 719.12 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to Food Truck Standards

 

            Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1159.02, 1167.02, 1169.02, 1171.02, 1173.02 and 1175.02 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to Food Truck Standards

 

Motion to approve minutes:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the May 27, 2014 Planning Commission meeting minutes.  Second by Mr. Eklof.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:40 PM

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Tuesday, June 23, 2014

Monday, July 14, 2014

Monday, July 28, 2014

 

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.