Source: https://www.granville.oh.us/planning-minutes-2007/
Timestamp: 2017-06-24 13:52:58
Document Index: 755476747

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07', 'Application No. 07']

Planning Minutes 2007 — Village of Granville
Visitors Present: Kevin Reiner, John Noblick, Constance Barsky, Fred Ashbaugh, Jim and Donna Brooks, Marilyn Keeler, Roger Kessler, Ben Barton, Doug Wagner, Barbara Hammond, Georgia Denune, Bill Heim, J. Drew McFarland, Esq., John Klauder, Chris Bunge, Marcella Kuhn. Citizen’s Comments: No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. Minutes of November 26, 2007 – Mr. Blanchard moved to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Mr. Ryan. The motion passed 3-0. The minutes of November 26, 2007 are approved as submitted. Old Business:
The request is for approval of a two-story addition and new porches.. Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr.Mitchell swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Constance Barsky, Kevin Reiner, and John Noblick. Mr. Blanchard made a motion to remove Application #07-096 from the Table. Seconded by Mr. Ryan. Roll Call Vote to remove Application #07-096 from the Table: Blanchard (yes), Ryan (yes), Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 3-0.
Ms. Terry explained that the applicant has addressed all of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the previous meeting. She stated that they are proposing a metal roof on the back, as well as a new metal roof for the front porch. Ms. Terry stated that she prefers the gable roof style and Mr. Blanchard also agreed. Mr. Reiner stated that they reduced the appearance of massing and they also reduced the second floor fire box. He went on to say that they did change a bathroom window to be a divided light window and this is a change from the previous plan that was presented. Mr. Blanchard stated that he sees no additional concerns and he stated that he appreciates the efforts on the applicant’s end. Constance Barsky, 221 East Elm Street, stated that she is a neighbor on the west side. She stated that from her view the extended roof line is very pleasing and this also reduces the massing which she appreciates. She thanked the applicant for their efforts. Mr. Blanchard moved to approve Application #07-096 as previously submitted, however, incorporating revised elevations reflected for the December 3, 2007 submittal; Any modifications to exterior elevations or colors to be reviewed and approved by the Village Planner; Blueprint full scale plans, Exhibit “A” reflecting gable roofs in lieu of hip roof. Seconded by Mr. Ryan. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-096 as stated by Mr. Blanchard: Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes), Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 3-0. Application No. 07-096 is approved. New Business:
The request is for approval of additional parking to the rear of the principal structure and a change of use to “C” Business and Professional Offices, specifically for a real estate office that will occupy 30% of the principal structure. The owner of the property is Marilyn Keeler. Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr.Mitchell swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Marilyn Keeler, Fred Ashbaugh, and Jim and Donna Brooks. Ms. Terry stated that a change of use is required by the BZBA for the property to be utilized 30% as a real estate office and 70% as residential. She explained that currently the property does not conform to residential or business because the time elapsed for the previous non-conforming use. Jim Brooks, 645 Kensington Drive, Heath, stated that this will not be a corporate HER office, but rather a satellite office. Donna Brooks, 635 Kensington Drive, Heath, stated that she anticipates only people on her team coming and going from the property. She later stated that it is possible that her clients could occasionally meet with her there. Fred Ashbaugh, 121 North Pearl Street, stated that he is a neighbor and he has no problem with the conditional use and it appears that parking won’t be a problem. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that he would not like to see the driveway cut opened. Ms. Terry stated that this is granted by the Director of Public Services. Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission has no control over driveway cuts. Mr. Brooks stated that he does not anticipate a need for an additional driveway cut. Mr. Blanchard stated that it appears to him that the parking spaces marked 1 & 2 might not be usable if someone is in the driveway. He stated that he brings this up because they had a similar parking request from a resident on Prospect Street and the Planning Commission did not respond favorably to this request because there was no egress. Ms Terry stated that the applicant will be living at 238 East Broadway. Mr. Brooks stated that he owns two vehicles and he has one full time employee that will be parking there. Mr. Mitchell asked if a garage can be considered a parking space. Ms. Terry stated yes. Mr. Mitchell stated that Mr. Blanchard has some valid concerns. Mr. Blanchard suggested shifting the driveway to the south and extending the existing driveway by three feet in width to ensure that spaces 1 & 2 are actually usable. He stated that spaces 3 & 4 could then become side by side parking. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the hedgerow would remain. He stated that he would like to see this remain as is. Mr. Brooks stated that he plans to keep the hedgerow, and get rid of overgrown vegetation near the home. Mr. Blanchard moved to approve Application #07-100 with the condition that the use Category shall now be “C”, Business and Professional offices, specifically for a Real Estate Office that will occupy 800 square feet of the first floor of the principal structure; That there shall be two (2) additional parking spaces constructed on the property in accordance with the mortgage location survey drawing submitted with the application, shown as Exhibit “A”; With the condition that the BZBA grants a conditional use for the remainder of the principal structure to be used for single family residential; That the existing hedgerow along the side lot line adjacent to Pearl Street be required to remain. Seconded by Mr. Ryan. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-100: Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes). Motion carried 3-0. Application No. 07-100 is approved.
223 East Elm Street, Application #07-096: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria: The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1159, Village Residential District Chapter 1161, and hereby gives their approval for the application. Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-096. Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call: Mitchell (yes), Blanchard (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Riffle abstained.) 238 East Broadway, Application #07-100: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria. The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1159, Village Business District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval for the application. Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-093. Seconded by Mr. Ryan. Roll Call: Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes), Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Riffle abstained.) Other Matters
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Village Gateway District text. They discussed roof pitches, massing, and overall design of structures located on River Road. The Commission is still in the process of reviewing the document and will continue these efforts at their next scheduled meeting. Mr. Blanchard announced that he will be resigning from the Planning Commission effective December 31, 2007 because he has relocated his primary residence outside of the Village. He stated that he has had discussions with Ms. Terry about possibly working during the interim of finding his replacement. Adjournment: 9:10 PM. Mr. Riffle moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Ryan. Motion carried 4-0. Next meetings:
Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2007
Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan, Tim Riffle (Chair), Melissa Hartfield (filling in for Jackie O'Keefe).
Members Absent: Jack Burriss, Jackie O’Keefe.
Staff Present: Village Planner - Alison Terry, Assistant Law Director – Brandy Maas. Visitors Present: Kevin Reiner, John Noblick, Karen Pugh, Lisa McKivergin, Steve Katz, and Constance Barsky. Citizen’s Comments: No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. Minutes of November 13, 2007 – Mr. Blanchard moved to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Mr. Ryan. The motion passed 4-0. The minutes of November 12, 2007 are approved as submitted.
221 East Elm Street, Steven Katz, Application #07-085
The request is to remove two windows on an accessory structure. Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Riffle swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Steve Katz. Mr. Blanchard inquired if the existing windows are of any historical significance. Mr. Katz stated no and that they are aluminum windows. Ms. Terry asked what the existing siding is made of . Mr. Katz stated that it is a wood composite material. Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application No. 07-085 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-085 as submitted: Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes), Mitchell (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application No. 07-085 is approved as submitted. 124 South Main Street, Elisabeth McKivergin, Application #07-093
The request is for approval for a replacement sign panel in an existing freestanding sign. Ms. Terry stated that the proposed sign did not meet the three color requirement. Mr. Riffle stated that traditionally the Planning Commission has not considered white as a color. Ms. Terry stated that this ought to be clarified in the Code. Ms. Terry suggested that if the application is approved that it should be on the condition that the sign not be internally illuminated. Whenever an applicant changes the sign panel the sign is required to conform with the existing code requirements - which does not allow internal illumination. Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application No. 07-093 on the condition that the sign no longer will be approved to be internally illuminated. Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-093: Blanchard (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application No. 07-093 is approved with the condition that the sign no longer be approved to be internally illuminated. 1257 Cherry Valley Road, Karen Pugh, Application #07-094
PCD The request is for approval of a temporary sign.
Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Riffle swore in Alison Terry and Karen Pugh. Mr. Terry stated that a variance is needed because the proposed sign exceeds what is allotted - being 4ftx3ft. She stated that the applicant did not specify the time period. Ms. Pugh stated that she would like to have the sign in place from December 2nd through December 15th. Ms. Terry stated that typically she has seen areas in the Code that deal with temporary activities, but there is not an area in Granville’s Code addressing this. She suggested that this should be looked into. Ms. Terry stated that she has discussed this matter with Manager Holycross. Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application No. 07-094 with the condition that the sign is temporary (December 2nd through December 15th) and that it is in keeping with Section 1189.09 of the Code, and that the sign is removed during non-business hours. Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-094 as submitted: Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes), Mitchell (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application No. 07-094 is approved with the conditions mentioned above. 418 West Broadway, John Noblick for Barbara Visintine, Application #07-095
TCOD, SRD-B
The request is for approval of a two-story addition and new deck.
Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Riffle swore in Alison Terry and John Noblick. Mr. Riffle stated that due to language in the Code, the Planning Commission is really unable to comment on the architecture. Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposal is a nice looking structure. Mr. Blanchard inquired on the outdoor lighting due to the nearest neighbor being only fourteen feet away. Mr. Noblick stated that the applicant intends to direct this lighting to the parking area. Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application No. 07-095 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-095 as submitted: Ryan (yes), Mitchell (yes), Blanchard (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application No. 07-095 is approved as submitted. 223 East Elm Street, John Noblick for Keith and Courtney McWalter, Application #07-096
The request is for approval of a two-story addition and new porches.
Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Riffle swore in Alison Terry, Kevin Reiner, John Noblick, and Steven Katz. Ms. Terry stated that the applicant appears to meet all of the requirements. She stated that the overall structure will be two feet taller than the existing home. Mr. Riffle stated that he has concerns over the size of the addition when you compare it to other homes in the area. Mr. Blanchard stated that with the addition, the length of the home will be approximately 90 feet. He questioned if the roof structure on the sound end could be eliminated to help with building massing. Mr. Ryan stated that the depth of the property increases by 9 feet with the proposed addition. John Noblick stated that he chose a hip style roof so that the addition appears to drop down from the front of the home. Kevin Reiner, who represents Firmly Planted, stated that the hip style roof allows for flat ceilings, which they felt were more fitting with the inside of the home. Mr. Riffle stated that it sounds as though the drawings ignore the outside aesthetics of the home to accommodate the inside features. He stated that he does not see the current designs as fitting the character of the existing home. Mr. Noblick stated that there is an alley nearby and it is very difficult to view the side of the home from the alley or anywhere on the street. Mr. Reiner asked if the overall height is reduced– would this be more in keeping with the historical character? Mr. Noblick stated that a gable roof would be massive from the street view. Mr. Riffle agreed that it would be massive because the proposed addition is huge. Mr. Blanchard suggested possibly lining up the windows, lowering the windows, as well as the height of the eaves. He stated that they could get rid of the hip roof and do a gable end. Mr. Mitchell stated that he wasn’t sure he agreed with Mr. Blanchard’s suggestions because he fears this would create too long of an unbroken structure. Mr. Riffle stated that the designs make it appear to be a home that never stops. He went on to say that the large number of trees that provide privacy could be lost if there was a future ice storm and then nearby neighbors would be forced to look at a massive structure. Mr. Riffle stated that he is confused why one makes a decision to purchase a home that they know is too small to fit their needs and then want to double it in size. Mr. Noblick stated that this particular applicant chose this home because of its proximity to downtown Granville and the bike path. Mr. Noblick asked the Planning Commission members if they prefer to see a hip or gable style roof. Mr. Blanchard stated that he does not mind the hip roof. Mr. Blanchard stated that it appears two neighbors are nearby and he questioned if the overall height would be imposing on them when they look out their back door. Ms. Terry stated that she measured the overall height to be approximately 27 feet. Mr. Blanchard suggested that the eaves could be lowered two feet and the proposed fire box could also be made smaller to achieve the same goal. Mr. Riffle stated that there doesn’t appear to be any symmetry with the doors on the sides of the rear elevation. Mr. Reiner stated that the doors on the sides of the rear elevation were created to create symmetry inside the home and to let light in. Mr. Riffle noted that the front door on the drawings is different from the existing front door. He asked if this was being changed. Mr. Noblick explained that this was simply easier to draw and they are not proposing a new front door. Steve Katz, 221 East Elm Street, stated that he is the west next door neighbor. Mr. Katz stated that when the leaves are off of the trees in the winter season he has a full view of the home on 223 East Elm. He went on to say that the overall plans for the addition look great and he believes the proposed addition would enhance the applicant’s quality of life. Mr. Katz questioned if the applicant would be screening in the newly proposed side porch. Mr. Reiner stated no. Mr. Katz stated that he would suggest that they consider screening both porches because he has found that without screening his porch would be useless in the summer months due to the mosquitoes. Mr. Katz asked what the height of the bedroom ceiling would be. Mr. Reiner answered 9 feet. Mr. Katz stated that he finds the elevated roof line to be jarring and he would like to see the same roof height maintained throughout the home. He stated that he would not like to see the back structure significantly bigger than the front of the home because it would appear as though the home is on the lot backwards. Mr. Katz stated that the columns on the porch addition look too massive and out of scale for a historical porch and he would suggest 6x6 columns instead. Mr. Reiner asked if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the proposed windows on the back side of the addition. He stated that some of the windows are smaller due to there being a bathroom in that area. Mr. Riffle stated that the existing windows appear odd that they do not line up, but this is likely the result of several previous additions. Mr. Reiner questioned if the members of the Planning Commission are comfortable with the proposed materials. There were no comments on the use of materials presented. Mayor Hartfield questioned the total square footage of the home before and after the addition and the percentage change in massing. Ms. Terry stated that the existing home is 2939 square feet and after the addition it would be 3693 square feet – which is 20% massing. Mr. Riffle stated that the applicant has two choices. They can request to have the application tabled for consideration at the next meeting on December 10th, or they can ask the Commission to vote on the application as presented this evening. Mr. Reiner and Mr. Noblick stated that they would like to request that the application be tabled. Mr. Blanchard moved to Table Application No. 07-096 per the applicant’s request. Seconded by Mr. Ryan. Roll Call Vote to Table Application #07-096: Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application No. 07-096 is Tabled. Old Business:
484 South Main Street, Application #07-083: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria. The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1175, Suburban Business District and Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval for the application. Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-083. Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Motion carried 4-0. Finding of Fact Approvals:
221 East Elm Street, Application #07-085: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria: The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1159, Village Residential District and Chapter 1175, Suburban Business District, and hereby gives their approval for the application. Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-085. Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Motion carried 4-0. 124 South Main Street, Application #07-093: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria. The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1159, Village Business District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval for the application. Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-093. Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Motion carried 4-0. 1257 Cherry Valley Road, Application #07-094: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria. The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1171, Planned Development District and Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, Chapter 1189 regarding Signs, and hereby gives their approval for the application. Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-094. Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Motion carried 4-0. 418 West Broadway, Application #07-095: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria. The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval for the application. Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-095. Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Motion carried 4-0. Other Matters
Mayor Hartfield asked that any Code oversights be mentioned to Ms. Terry so the appropriate changes can be looked into. Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission has been doing this via Councilmember O’Keefe and Ms. Terry acknowledged that the has an account of issues that need to be addressed. Adjournment: 8:20 pm. Mr. Ryan moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Motion carried 4-0. Next meetings:
December 3, 2007 – Planning Commission work session to review the Village Gateway District Zoning Ordinance
December 10, 2007 – Regularly Scheduled Meeting
Visitors Present: Leta Ross, Kris Harrison, Kirsten Pape, Doug Wagner, Laura Andujar, Jeanne Crumrine, John Klauder, Brian Miller Approval of Minutes
No Citizen Comments New Business:
AROD and VBD Mr. Riffle swore in all witnesses wishing to address this application The request is for the approval of a sidewalk, sandwich sign. Mr. Ryan asked if a second sandwich board was permitted for this building. Planner Terry indicated that the Commission could ask forward this application to the BZBA for a variance; however, under Section 1189.12 the Commission has the authority to approve an additional sign. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if Greek Eats had a sandwich board sign. Mr. Riffle indicated that they did not have a sign. Mr. Blanchard asked how much overlap would exist from when Mr. Torabi’s sign and Delmar’s sign would be in use. An hour or two was suggested. Mr. Riffle indicated that the proposed sign meets several of the criteria.
Chip Blanchard moved to approve the sidewalk sign as submitted with the conditions that the sign be moved when closed and during non-business hours, and that the sign’s colors be consistent with the signage on the front of the existing business. Second Mr. Burriss. Roll call vote for Application #07-082: Blanchard, Burriss, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-082 is approved. 484 South Main Street – Laura Andujar on behalf of Andy Ross and Ross’ Granville Market – Application #07-083
TCOD and SBD Mr. Riffle swore in all witnesses wishing to address this application The request is for approval of a site plan and architectural review and approval of a 550 square foot addition and façade renovation.
Laura Andujar, architect, advised the Commission that a variance had been granted by the BZBA for the renovations proposed to the Granville Market. She presented the Commission with revised drawings and samples materials. Mr. Riffle questioned if the roof over the entrance door had been made smaller. A larger roof would provide more of a colonnade appearance. Mr. Burriss suggested realigning the columns to improve the tenant face. One column was located directly in front of the video store entrance. He also suggested watching where the gutters and the hose bib are located to prevent problems with water run-off during storms and winter’s ice/thaw. Mr. Blanchard questioned how the brick return would be handled. He also asked about the siding and shingle color. The applicant provided samples of each. Planner Terry advised that the applicant would also be responsible for paying a portion of the construction costs of a five foot (5’) sidewalk in front of the property to provide for continuous access to the pedestrian bridge being constructed. Mr. Blanchard moved to approve application #07-083 as submitted with the following conditions:
Second by Mr. Burris. Roll call vote for Application #07-083: Blanchard, Burriss, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 4-0. Application #07-083 is approved. Public Hearing for the Proposed Village Gateway District Zoning Ordinance Mr. Riffle swore in witnesses who wished to speak during the public hearing. John Klauder, 30 Old Farm Road, advised that the River Road steering committee had initially suggested ten (10) units per acre. After several meetings with the Planning and Zoning Committee, a compromised was reached of six (6) units per acre. The proposed text now indicates a four (4) units per acre density with an additional two (2) units permitted if open space is provided. Mr. Klauder asked that the units per acre density be increased back to the agreed upon six (6) units. Mr. Klauder indicated that at four units per acre, he is unable to make his project work successfully. Mr. Klauder also questioned the lot coverage issue of not exceeding 50%, while the open space area the lot coverage shall not exceed 70%. Also, what is dedicated open space? Planner Terry indicated that both of these percentages are correct. If a property is developed at four units per acre, the developer would be permitted 50% lot coverage. If the density bonus were elected which provides for open space, the development may have six units per acre with a 70% lot coverage. The open space would have to be accessible to the public, not private green space at the expense of the property owner. Doug Wagner, 300 Pinehurst Drive, would like to develop a commercial property. He expressed concern regarding the density issue of 5,000 total gross square feet per acre. This density level was reduced substantially form the original level of 10,000 square feet per acre. This suggested code is too restrictive for commercial development. The River Road area has a variety of property types. The zoning needs to allow for more flexibility that can be tailored to a variety of lots styles. The annexation of this area was to help provide additional tax revenue for the school district. Restricting development seems to defeat the purpose of the annexation. Mr. Riffle indicated that this code is consistent with the current Suburban Business District (SBD). Developing a code that attempts to tailor the zoning to individual lots is difficult as it does not provide consistency. The code needs to be consistent so it can be applied fairly and managed efficiently. Mr. Ryan questioned why the SBD codes were not being directly applied to this area. Planner Terry indicated that this district was intended to be a plan district which allows for more flexibility in development. This district was designed to provide open space with reduced density. She suggested that a different could be more accessible and still provide dedicated open space. Mr. Riffle indicated that the current code outlines what needs to be done in order to increase units per acre. Planner Terry did question the definition of open space and how that area would function. Mr. Ryan indicated that this text was the first time the Commission had the opportunity to review this text and had not been included in the process. There still seemed to be a number of questions regarding what was included in this document. Mr. Ryan indicated that this document does not encourage development. Planner Terry indicated that the presentation tonight depicted the updated comments from the property owners that had been complied so far. She suggested that the Commission set-up a separate hearing to more thoroughly address their questions. The Commission could forward suggestions or questions to her by email. Planner Terry indicated that some of the larger issues with this area are environmental issues with the two lakes, the flood plain and the typography of some of the properties. Development should help preserve these features. Mr. Ryan asked if these issues would be addressed more satisfactory with a PUD type plan. Planner Terry indicated that our existing PUD text is not written like standard PUD codes. Our PUD plan could allow for too much flexibility in density and design. Mr. Blanchard indicated that areas north of River Road, this zoning text could apply while areas on the south side of River Road are not compatible regarding density. Mr. Riffle asked what the goal of this ordinance was. He felt the ordinance was trying to create a false identity. This district’s proposed zoning is more restrictive than the AROD and VBD. Is this area intended to be a reproduction of the downtown area? He understood that it was indicated to be a compliant to downtown Granville. He indicated that when attempts to build historically accurate communities, the result is to degrade the existing historic areas. Mr. Blanchard responded that the intent of the regulations were to serve as guidelines to help control development. Mr. Ryan asked the origin of this document. Planner Terry indicated that it was based on the original SBD text. Mr. Klauder indicated that three years ago the River Road property owners came to Council and presented their ideas for annexation and development of this area. At that time, Council agreed that these properties were a unique area and would need zoning that was different from any zoning district currently in use. Council seemed to discard the suggestions made by the property owners and selected the SBD district as their starting point. However, the SBD template does not seem address the issues in this area. Mr. Riffle indicated that the SBD has too many issues currently regarding roof pitch, materials, colors, etc. Mr. Blanchard indicated that the district needs to maintain some type of control. Mr. Klauder asked what the procedure will now be for this process. He felt the process feels like it is starting over. Planner Terry indicated that the Planning Commission would hold a hearing and make a formal recommendation to Council. Council would schedule public hearings, make any revisions, and vote on the ordinance. Mr. Burriss suggested that the Planning Commission be provided with the original recommendations from the property owners and all other presentations of this zoning district. The Commission should have time to review this information and then schedule a public work session develop the Commission’s recommendations. Planner Terry should also provide her drawings of what the proposed area would like with two different types of development. Mr. Ryan moved that the Granville Planning Commission meet on December 3, 2007 at 7:00pm to discuss the proposed Village Gateway District ordinance. Second by Mr. Burriss. Roll call vote for the Special Commission meeting: Blanchard, Burriss, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 4-0. Finding of Fact Approvals
Mr. Ryan moved to approve the Finding of Facts for application #07-082 as it is consistent with the relevant sections of the AROD and the Granville Codified Ordinances and approve the sign application. Second Mr. Blanchard. Motion approved 4-0. Next meetings:
November 26, 2007 Special Meeting – December 3, 2007 – A Public Hearing for the Proposed Village Gateway District Zoning Ordinance December 10, 2007
Mr. Ryan moved to adjourn the meeting. Second by Mr. Blanchard. Motion approved 4-0. Meeting Adjourned. GranvilleVillage
Staff Present: Village Planner - Alison Terry, Law Director – Mike Crites. Visitors Present: Barbara Franks, Dan Rodgers, Tim Hughes, Brian Corbett, Scott Harman, George Fackler, Tom Loomis, James Day, Tim Hughes, Sharon Sellitto, Christopher Avery, and Mr. and Mrs. Sabato Sagaria.
A court reporter was present to transcribe items under Old Business – Application 07-064. Citizen’s Comments: No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. Minutes of October 1, 2007 – Mr. Blanchard moved to approve the minutes as presented. Second by Mr. Mitchell. The motion passed 5-0. The minutes of October 1, 2007 are approved as submitted.
The request is for approval for removal and replacement of the front porch. Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Riffle swore in those who planned to speak in regards to Application #-07-079. Tom Loomis, 870 Church Street, Newark, stated that he is representing Ms. Dennison for the property located at 127 South Mulberry Street. He stated that she would like to have the old structure removed and replaced with a new structure which does not exceed the boundaries of the old porch. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the roof would be the same pitch. Mr. Loomis stated that the new roof would be sloped, while the existing roof is a flat roof. Mr. Burriss inquired on the use of a hip roof. Mr. Loomis agreed that a hip roof would be architecturally correct, but they really felt that keeping the gable end was best. Mr. Mitchell asked if the same kind of shingles would be used. Mr. Loomis stated yes. Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposed structure looks like a good improvement. Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application No. 07-079 as submitted. Second by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-079 as submitted: Blanchard (yes), Ryan (yes), Mitchell (yes) Burriss (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application No. 07-079 is approved as submitted. 237 East College Street, James and Delores Day, #07-080
The request is for approval of removal and replacement of the windows. Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Riffle swore in those who planned to speak in regards to Application #07-080. James Day, 237 East College Street, stated that he is representing his wife who is the owner of the property located at 237 East College Street. He stated that they wish to replace the windows for energy efficiency, aesthetics, and to reduce the noise level. Mr. Day stated that they rent out two units in the home. Mr. Blanchard asked if the existing shutters would be kept. Mr. Day stated yes. Mr. Day provided a sample window for the committee to review. He stated that the new windows would fit into the space of the existing windows. Mr. Blanchard moved to approve Application No. 07-080 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Ryan. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-080 as submitted: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 5-0.Application No. 07-080 is approved as submitted. Old Business:
The request is for approval of a Change in Use for the front, primary structure (121 S. Prospect Street). The Change of Use requested is from “Business and Professional Offices: medical and dental offices and clinics, law offices, insurance and real estate offices” to “Food, drug, and beverage businesses: grocery stores, meat market, drug stores, and bakeries in conjunction with retail sales, restaurants, and tea rooms.” A court reporter transcribed discussions regarding Application #07-064. Please refer to the transcript which is included as part of these minutes (see attachment). Mr. Mitchell questioned if the application ought to be withdrawn, rather than tabled once again. Ms. Franks stated that she would not like all of the testimony and work done thus far to be thrown out. She asked what would be required of her if the application is withdrawn, rather than tabled. Ms. Terry stated that the applicant would need to submit a new application and pay a $50 fee. Law Director Crites indicated that if the application is tabled, he would prefer to see the applicant make the request for Tabling and have a date associated with hearing the application sometime in the future. Mr. Rodgers and Barbara Franks agreed to table the application and have it heard on or before the second meeting of May 2008. With the Tabling of Application #07-064, the applicant also agreed to waive the 45-day time period associated with the application. The applicants were also told that a separate application would need to be submitted for the Change of Use request for a medical service center in the rear structure of the property located at 121 South Prospect Street. The following individuals spoke during discussions of Application No. 07-064
Tim Hughes, 630 Newark-Granville Road Mr. Blanchard moved to Table Application #07-064 and have it heard by the Planning Commission on or before the second meeting of May 2008. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote to Table Application #07-064 to be heard on or before the second Planning Commission of May 2008: Ryan (yes), Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Blanchard (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-064 is Tabled and scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on or before the second meeting of May 2008. 2326 Newark-Granville Road, George Fackler, #07-018
The request is for approval of a deep red color, which is not a pre-approved color under the Suburban Business District regulations, to be used on the roof and trim only for the new commercial building. Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Riffle swore in those who planned to speak in regards to Application #07-018. Mr. Fackler presented a sample of the requested red siding. He stated that he feels this would give the structure “an old barn look.” The committee discussed whether or not to have a third color used for the trim, rather than the proposed roof color. Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Fackler what color he plans to use for the shutters. Mr. Fackler stated that this has not yet been decided or formally requested. Mr. Burriss suggested that the color of the shutters might look best if they pick up a color used in the sign. Mr. Fackler agreed. Mr. Burriss stated that the color of the shutters can be addressed when they are addressing the color of the sign. Mr. Fackler asked if he needs to come back to the Planning Commission for approval of the shutters and sign colors if they are approved colors. Ms. Terry stated no. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the building is going to be a glaring red structure. She stated that some people were unpleased with the bright red color used for Bob Evans Restaurant. Mr. Fackler stated that it will stand out a bit, but not any more than the structure to the east of his property. Mr. Burriss moved to approve Application No. 07-018 as re-submitted with the presented red color from 64 Metals Bright Red used on the roof and 64 Metals Light Stone for the siding. He stated that approval would also entail that the presented red color be used for the trim to be consistent. Second by Mr. Ryan. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-080 as submitted: Mitchell (yes), Blanchard (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application No. 07-018 is approved as re-submitted. Finding of Fact Approvals: Old Business:
This application is not in the AROD. The Planning Commission found the Findings of Fact to be consistent with the regulations in the SBD (Suburban Business District). The color submitted was not a pre-approved color, therefore the Planning Commission was required to approve the alternate color. New Business:
237 East College Street, #07-080 Mr. Mitchell read aloud the following Findings of Fact pertaining to Application #07-079 and 07-080:
d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-079 and #07-080. Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Blanchard moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 5-0. Next meetings:
The request is for the approval of the rebuilding of an accessory structure (garage) on the property. John Noblick submitted the application on behalf of the Sinsabaugh’s. Village Planner Terry reported that the original structure was destroyed by fire and the family is requesting to rebuild the structure increasing it by four feet to the south. The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals granted a variance on September 27, 2007 to reduce the western side yard setback to three feet eight inches. The lot coverage will be 37% which is well within the requirement. The proposed style is traditional. The Planning Commission needs to carefully consider the building materials and texture that the applicant proposes for this rebuild and make those materials a condition of approval. The applicant did not indicate the external materials or colors for this project. The exact building materials, texture and colors should be made a condition of approval. John Noblick indicated that there would be a second floor attic that would be left unfinished. The space would be used for storage and as an art studio. There will be no other utilities other than electricity as part of the structure. The wall shingles will be shiplap style painted taupe with white trim. The doors selected are insulated, metal, carriage style doors.
Chip Blanchard commented that he would prefer to see cedar used over hardie plank as cedar provides a nicer shadow effect. Mr. Noblick indicated that the hardie plank that was being considered was 5/16 inch. Mr. Riffle indicated that he did not have a problem with either the hardie plank or cedar shingle. Mr. Blanchard asked if the proposed trim would be the one inch cedar/redwood. Mr. Noblick answered in the affirmative. Mr. Burriss commented that the new garage will be far more decorative and attractive than the previous structure. He asked if the garage roof shingles would match the shingles on the house. Mr. Noblick indicated in the affirmative. Mrs. Sinsabaugh replied that the shingles would be dimensional, shades of gray shingles.
Roll call vote for Application #07-070: Blanchard, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-070 is approved. 134-136 North Prospect Street – Randy and Tina Corbin – Application #07-071
Mr. Blanchard asked Ms. Terry if the building owner Kristin Darfus was aware of this sign application. Mr. Terry indicated that she had spoken with Ms. Darfus and she had given her approval for the sign. Mr. Riffle questioned if the red color in the sign would match the trim color around the door. Mr. Harrison indicated in the affirmative.
Roll call vote for Application #07-071: Blanchard, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-071 is approved. 117 South Prospect Street – Sabato Sagaria – Application #07-075
Village Planner Terry advised that the applicant is proposing a combination of asphalt shingles on one section of the roof and a rubber membrane on the flat section of the roof. There are other structures in the area with asphalt shingles and a portion of the existing roof and garage already have asphalt shingles. The color of the shingles and rubber has not been provided. The Planning Commission needs to carefully consider the building materials, texture, color and historical character of this district, and make them a condition of the approval. Mr. Sagaria provided the committee with a packet showing the interior damage due to roofing issues. Water has damaged the attic, second and first floors. The roof currently has four different roofing materials. The north side of the house, the garage and front porch currently have 3-tab asphalt shingles. Areas that need repair are the south side of the roof, around the chimney and the flat portion of the roof. He would replace the flat portion of the roof with a new rubber membrane. He would rate the condition of the roof as poor to very poor. He intends to install new gutter and downspouts. He would replace the flashing around the chimney and replace or repair the cricket. He did get quotes for repairing the slate portion of the roof of $20,000 or $50,000 to replace the entire roof with slate. He reported that the use of slate would be cost prohibitive. Replacing the roof with asphalt shingles would cost $5,000 to $12,000. He would ask that the Planning Commission approve his application so he can begin repairs quickly.
Mr. Burriss asked how old was the asphalt section of the roof. Mr. Sagaria thought 5 to 6 years old. Mr. Burris indicated that the committee would recommend replacing the entire roof with a dimensional asphalt shingle that looked like slate. He indicated that as the porch roof and part of the pitched roof portion of the roof are visible from the front of the house, a dimensional shingle would look better. Mr. Burriss asked the condition of the existing asphalt shingles. Mr. Sagaria replied that the shingles seem fine except by the chimney. Mr. Riffle indicated that the dimensional slate shingles would only cost 30% to 40% more per bundle. Mr. Mitchell indicated that he would prefer to see the dimensional shingle over the whole house. Mr. Sagaria indicated that he did not intend to reroof the entire house. He only wants to replace the slate portion of the roof with shingles that match the existing asphalt shingles. Mr. Sagaria provided a small sample of the replacement shingle for the committee to view. Mr. Blanchard asked Ms. Terry if replacing the gutters was included as part of the application. Ms. Terry indicated that gutters were not included. Mr. Blanchard indicated that Mr. Sagaria had several different gutters styles on the house including K-style and box gutters. He was not comfortable approving gutter replacement as they were not included on the application. Mr. Riffle indicated that the committee cannot vote on gutter replacements as they were not included on the application. Mr. Sagaria stated that if he replaced any of the gutters on his home, he would replace them with like materials.
Roll call vote for Application #07-075: Blanchard, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-075 is approved. Finding of Fact Approvals
Mr. Burriss move to adjourn the meeting. Second by Mr. Blanchard. Motion approved 5-0. Meeting Adjourned. GranvilleVillage
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 2007 7:00pm Minutes Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan, Jack Burriss, Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Riffle (Chair). Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Village Planner - Alison Terry, Planner I – Lauren Repas, Mollie Prasher – Clerk of Council. Visitors Present: James and Jill Levere, Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Tim Hughes, John Castle, and Dr. Sabato "Sam" Sagaria. A court reporter was present to transcribe items under ‘New Business.’ She swore in all those who planned to speak. Citizen’s Comments: John Casell, 216 East College Street, stated that he was there to inquire about property located at 224 East College Street. He stated that the primary structure used to be a 1 ½ story building, but it is now a two story building. Mr. Casell asked if this was approved by the Planning Commission and he stated he did not receive any notice regarding a hearing. Mr. Casell stated that he objects to the approval because it means more people and more cars. Mr. Casell went on to say that he also objects to the sod being taken up to create a parking lot. He stated that the work being done at 224 East College Street is decreasing the value of his home, while increasing the value of their property. Mr. Casell also stated that a bay of the garage appears to now be an apartment and he wondered if an occupancy permit had been given. He also stated that he would like to be notified of any future hearings or decisions for property located at 224 East College Street. Mrs. Terry stated that she pulled the file for this property and what has been built does not appear to be consistent with what was originally approved by the Planning Commission. She stated that the parking lot is consistent with what was submitted. Mrs. Terry stated that the Village needs to notify the property owner to ask them to resubmit an application. She went on to say that she will look into the apartment in the garage. Mrs. Terry explained that the original application requested changing the property from a five unit rental to four unit condominium. New Business: 426 East College Street, James and Jill Levere, #07-059 AROD Tabled at the September 10, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Mitchell made a motion to remove Application #07-059 from the Table. Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-059 is removed from the Table. The request is for approval of the following items: 1) Replacement of worn shingles on the primary structure; 2) Replacement of deteriorated particleboard siding on detached garage with new siding to match existing siding on the primary structure; 3) Replacement of existing (first level) screened porch with new (first level) screened porch and second story deck with roof structure; 4) Replacement of existing garage door. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD). A court reporter transcribed discussions regarding Application #07-059. Please refer to the transcript which is included as part of these minutes. Mr. Mitchell moved to Approve Application #07-059 with conditions: Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-059 with conditions: Blanchard (no), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-1. Application #07-059 is approved with the following Conditions: 1) Replacement of the worn shingles on the primary structure with asphalt shingles. 2) Replacement of the particleboard siding on the detached garage with vinyl siding to match the vinyl siding on the primary structure. 3) Replacement of existing garage door with carriage style doors 4) Replacement of existing (first level) screened porch with new (first level) screened porch & second story deck structure. 5) (Condition of the Approval of #4) Painting of the exterior of the structure to be white, including railing, supports & T111. 6) (Condition of the Approval of #4) Division of the screens on the first level to be consistent with the submitted photographs labeled Exhibits A and B. 7) (Condition of the Approval of #4) That the soffits would be enclosed consistent with the submitted photographs labeled Exhibit C. 121 South Prospect Street, Dan Rogers, #07-064 AROD The request is for approval of a change in use for a portion of the main structure currently used by Perry Watson as a chiropractic office from Business and Professional Offices (C) to Food, Drug, and Beverage Businesses (D). The property is zoned Village Business District. A court reporter transcribed discussions regarding Application #07-064. Please refer to the transcript which is included as part of these minutes. Mr. Rogers agreed to table the application so he could submit a site plan. He was also told that a separate application would need to be submitted for the change of use request for a medical service center in the rear structure of the property located at 121 South Prospect Street. Mr. Mitchell moved to Table Application #07-064. Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote to Table Application #07-064: Mitchell, Blanchard, Burris, Ryan, Riffle. Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-064 is Tabled. Minutes of September 10, 2007 – Mr. Mitchell moved to Table the minutes because the committee did not have a copy in front of them for review. Seconded by Mr. Ryan. The motion passed 5-0. The minutes of September 10, 2007 are Tabled. Other Matters Councilmember O’Keefe requested that the committee review any end of the year issues or suggestions for Council to review. She stated that she thought it might be beneficial for Council to hear their thoughts and suggestions. The committee agreed to forward comments to Mrs. Terry and she agreed to get this information to Council. Mr. Blanchard moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 5-0. Next meetings: October 1, 2007 October 22, 2007 ______________________________________ ______________________________ Planning Commission Chair, Tim Riffle Date Approved Adjournment: 8:35 pm. Respectfully submitted by: Melanie Schott GranvilleVillage
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION September 10, 2007 7:00pm Minutes Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan, Jack Burriss, Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Riffle (Chair). Staff Present: Law Director - Mike Crites, Village Planner - Alison Terry, Planner I – Lauren Repas. Visitors Present: James and Jill Levere, Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Tim Hughes, Sharon Sellito, Chris Avery, Jim Kent, and Sabato Sagaria. A court reporter was present to transcribe items under ‘Old Business’ and ‘New Business.’ She swore in all those who planned to speak. Minutes of August 27, 2007 – Mr. Blanchard moved to accept the minutes as presented. Second by Mr. Burriss. The motion passed 5-0. The minutes of August 27, 2007 are approved as submitted. Citizen’s Comments: Jerry Martin, 2276 Hankinson Road, inquired about the Del Mar Restaurant located where the Granvilla used to be. He explained that Brews Café was required to have a dumpster enclosure and asked what provisions have been made for the Del Mar Restaurant. Mr. Martin stated that it appears to him that they have no room for a trash dumpster. He stated it would be unfortunate that they are this far along in the renovation process and find that they have to make provisions for an enclosed trash dumpster. Mr. Martin stated that he would like all establishments treated equally and fairly. Mr. Riffle stated that this is something the Planning Commission and Staff would look into. Old Business: 426 East College Street, James and Jill Levere, #07-05 AROD Tabled at the August 27, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Mitchell made a motion to remove Application #07-059 from the Table. Second by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote to Remove Application #07-059 from the Table: Blanchard, Mitchell, Ryan, Burriss, Riffle. Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-059 is removed from the Table. The request is for approval of the following items: 1) Replacement of worn shingles on the primary structure; 2) Replacement of deteriorated particleboard siding on detached garage with new siding to match existing siding on the primary structure; 3) Replacement of existing (first level) screened porch with new (first level) screened porch and second story deck with roof structure; 4) Replacement of existing garage door. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD). A court reporter transcribed discussions regarding Application #07-059. Please refer to the transcript which is included as part of these minutes. Mr. Blanchard moved to Table Application #07-059. Second by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote to Table Application #07-059: Burriss, Ryan, Mitchell, Blanchard, Riffle. Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-059 is Tabled. New Business 121 South Prospect Street, Dan Rogers, #07-064 AROD The request is for approval of a change in use for the rear accessory structure from Retail Outlets (E) to Food, Drug, and Beverage Businesses (D). The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD). A court reporter transcribed discussions regarding Application #07-064. Please refer to the transcript which is included as part of these minutes. Mr. Rogers agreed that the application ought to be tabled so he could further research access points to the property. Mr. Blanchard moved to Table Application #07-064. Second by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote to Table Application #07-064: Ryan, Burriss, Blanchard, Mitchell, Riffle. Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-064 is Tabled. Work Session The Planning Commission discussed the proposed sketch plan for property located northwest of Arby’s on Speedway Drive in the Planned Commercial District. The applicant is Jeanne Crumrine; her representative was Laura Andujar, with RCS Design. Ms. Terry read aloud the staff report. She stated that the Planning Commission should address the ingress/egress for the fire department, as well as off street parking. She stated that the storm drainage, possible sidewalk extensions, elevation not being two stories, windows maximum allowable signage, and the roof pitch will all need to be addressed. The committee discussed the code reference to a 2 ½ story building. Councilmember O’Keefe stated that this specific code requirement needs to be addressed. The other members of the Planning Commission agreed. Councilmember O’Keefe inquired about the architectural style. Ms. Terry stated that the applicant is calling it Greek Revival. Councilmember O’Keefe stated that the whole panel glass doors could be dangerous. Mr. Riffle stated that the doors proposed by the applicant are made of shatter proof glass. Mr. Riffle later suggested using a ¾ glass door, while Mr. Burriss suggested bringing in a sample of the glass. The committee discussed the proposed sidewalk. Mr. Mitchell suggested an additional 40 foot extension and a sidewalk to the pedestrian green space area. Mr. Burriss questioned how the sidewalk might connect to the perimeter of the building, as they required with Arby’s. Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed loading area is not ideal, but it is the lesser of two evils. He indicated that landscaping will help. Mr. Mitchell suggested calling the fire department to see if they will be able to circle the building. Ms. Crumrine agreed. The committee discussed the proposed signage in regards to the building’s two fronts. Ms. Terry stated that she would need to look into the proposed monument sign to see if it is allowed. Ms. Terry suggested screening the parking and dumpster area with agreement from the Planning Commission. The committee also discussed whether mullions were required by code. Ms. Terry stated that the code says “divided windows and/or mullions.” Mr. Burriss asked Ms. Crumrine to check if the sketch is referring to mounds or groundcover. Mr. Ryan inquired as to lot coverage. Ms. Terry explained that their final plan will address lot coverage. Ms. Terry also stated that she has received some complaints about the lighting at Arby’s being too bright. This issue should be addressed by the Planning Commission when reviewing the lighting plan. Mr. Riffle suggested aluminum cladding for the windows with sample colors available for review. Mr. Burriss suggested having a hose dib to clean out the dumpster area. Mr. Riffle stated that the 8/12 roof pitch will not look appropriate on this building. This code requirement should be addressed as quickly as possible. Mr. Burriss commended the applicant for using the work session process which he stated can be beneficial for everyone involved. The Planning Commission also had a work session with Ms. Andujar, RCS Design, and Ross Granville Market. Ms. Terry read aloud the staff concerns and she stated that a variance would be required from the BZBA for any portions of the submitted plans that did not meet code requirements. The committee discussed removing some of the proposed columns. They also discussed the use of materials. Ms. Terry explained that the SBD (Suburban Business District) district requires the use of natural materials, while the AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District) suggests the use of natural materials. Mr. Riffle and other members of the Planning Commission stated that this discrepancy should be addressed by the Planning and Zoning Committee. They also suggested having the Planning and Zoning Committee look at the 8/12 pitch roof requirement because they felt it is too restrictive. Mr. Riffle stated that with the 8/12 roof pitch requirement, the BZBA would constantly be getting variance requests. Ms. Terry agreed to present these concerns to the Planning and Zoning Committee. Mr. Ryan moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. Second by Mr. Blanchard. Motion carried 5-0. Next meeting: September 24, 2007 ______________________________________ ______________________________ Planning Commission Chair, Tim Riffle Date Approved Adjournment: 10:07 pm. Respectfully submitted by: Melanie Schott GranvilleVillage
Visitors Present: Michelle Steinberg, James and Jill Levere, Fred Ashbaugh, Butch Mills, Todd Hultgren, Don Moxley, Tom and Linda Clark. The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak. Approval of Minutes from July 23, 2007 – Mr. Blanchard moved to accept the minutes as presented. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. The motion passed 5-0. The minutes of July 23, 2007 are approved as submitted.
Barbara Franks, 121 South Prospect Street, stated that she will be having a blood drive at Footloose on September 17th and is inviting everyone to participate. New Business:
The request is for approval to remove an old entry enclosure and to add a handrail to the porch on the north elevation of the existing residential structure. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD). Mr. Ashbaugh explained that the old structure was not original to the home and was added some time later. Mr. Blanchard stated that he had been by the home to look at the foundation and he had no problem approving the application. No other members of the Planning Commission showed objection to the application. Mr. Burris moved to approve application #07-053 as submitted. Second by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote for Application #07-053: Riffle, Mitchell, Burris, Ryan, Blanchard. Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-053 is approved. 222 East Broadway, Huntington Bank, #07-054
Mr. Butch Mills stated that he was representing Huntington Bank to request approval to repair the fascia on the drive-through canopy, to remove the trim from the base of the seven existing drive-through columns, and to replace with limestone cladding. The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD). Mr. Mills stated that he plans to reconstruct the structure exactly as it is, but with new materials. Mr. Riffle asked the proposed height. Mr. Mills stated that the columns will remain at the existing elevation. Mr. Blanchard asked if the columns would increase in size. Mr. Mills stated that they will be 14 inches across the base with the decorative piece. He stated that it is their intent to miter the corners and have a slight overhang. Mr. Blanchard asked if the columns are only located in the drive through area. Mr. Mills stated yes. Mr. Blanchard questioned how they are anchored. Mr. Mills stated that they had a structural engineer investigate this and they are unsure, but they will make sure that the new columns are properly secured. Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application #07-054 as submitted. Second by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote for Application #07-054: Mitchell, Blanchard, Ryan, Burris, Riffle. Motion carried 5-0.
Application #07-054 is approved. Application #07-055 listed on the Agenda for August 27, 2007 was withdrawn by the applicant.
Ms. Terry stated that there is an existing fence that the applicant would like to replace. An example of the proposed fence was included with the application. Ms. Terry stated that the Code does call for blunt edges on the pickets, rather than sharp points that could be dangerous. Mr. Burris stated that the degree of the picket angle should not be sharp, but angled enough to allow water to run off so that they do not rot. Mr. Clark brought an example of the proposed pavers for the driveway. It was stated that these are concrete pavers made to look like granite. Mr. Blanchard inquired on the large pine tree located near the driveway. Mr. Riffle stated that new concrete is notorious for killing nearby trees. Mr. Clark explained that it was his intent to keep the driveway pavers as far away from this tree as possible. Mr. Blanchard stated that the work being done at 404 West Broadway is impressive and he is encouraged with any application wanting to use a wood fence. Other members of the Planning Commission agreed. Ms. Terry stated that as with all cases, she would be inspecting the installation after it is completed to verify that the applicant installed what was approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Blanchard moved to approve Application #07-056 with the condition that the Village Planner inspect an example of the picket fence prior to installing it and that her recommendation on the degree of the angle of the point on the individual picket be adhered to. Second by Mr. Burris. Roll Call Vote for Application #07-056: Burris, Blanchard, Ryan, Mitchell, Riffle. Motion carried 5-0.
Application #07-056 is approved. 205 South Prospect Street, Don Moxley, #07-057
Mr. Moxley brought in the sign he intends to use. He explained that he would like to relocate it from the front porch to be a free-standing sign in the front yard. Mr. Ryan moved to approve Application #07-057 with the condition that the sign not be placed over 8 feet from the ground. Second by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote for Application #07-057: Ryan, Burris, Mitchell, Riffle, Blanchard. Motion carried 5-0.
The request is for approval to install fencing on the northwest corner of the rear yard and for approval to install a paver patio and walkway in the rear yard. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD). Mr. Hultgren stated that there are already four panels of a fence in place that he would like to extend. Several photos were submitted and the committee agreed that the fence would be best if it matched what was displayed in Exhibit A – with an angled fence. Mr. Hultgren agreed that an angled fence would look best and he would have no problem constructing it in this way. Mr. Steve Mershon, a neighbor, stated that he has no objections to the proposed work Mr. Hultgren would like to do. Mr. Burris moved to approve Application #07-058 with the condition that the proposed fence be constructed at a 45 degree angle (as in Exhibit A) and not to exceed 72 inches in height. He also stated that the newly constructed fence should have matching lattice as in the picture (Exhibit A). Second by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote for Application #07-058: Riffle, Ryan, Mitchell, Burris, Blanchard. Motion carried 5-0.
Application #07-058 is approved with the above stated condition (Exhibit A). 426 East College Street, James and Jill Levere, #07-059
4) Replacement of existing garage door. The property is zoned in the Village Residential District (VRD). Mr. Levere stated that sometime during the last week of May or the first week of June he called the Village Offices and spoke with a female regarding work he planned to do at 426 East College Street. He stated that he was told he didn’t need a permit because he was not expanding the lot coverage and he was using the existing foundation. Councilmember O’Keefe later stated that she doesn’t believe someone from the Planning Office would say that a permit is not required. Mr. Levere went ahead with work at 426 East College Street and the work is now completed. Ms. Terry stated that some of the materials used are not listed on the application. The staff recommendation is to provide additional information relative to the materials used for the screened porch for review and approval by the Planning Commission. She went on to say that approximately 50% of the homes in the area do have vinyl siding. Mr. Blanchard stated that he has some concerns over the situation being that Mr. Levere has done work in the Village in the past and as a responsible business man he should have known better than to proceed without some kind of approval. He went on to say that the material choice does not seem to fit with what is already located in the area. He stated that they also do not encourage the use of vinyl in the AROD district. Mr. Riffle asked if the vinyl is approved or excluded. Ms. Terry stated that the code states that natural material should be encouraged. Mr. Levere stated that he only put vinyl on the garage and there was already vinyl on the home before he purchased it. He stated that a nearby back porch is also made of wood (as his) and it is not protected with paint or polyurethane. Mr. Blanchard, Mr. Riffle, and Mr. Mitchell all stated that they really had no significant problems with the vinyl and it was a good match to the primary structure. Mr. Burris stated that this is a situation that they need to look at as if it is prior to the construction – what would the Planning Commission have approved. He stated that the back porch structure is totally different from the look of the home. Mr. Riffle agreed and stated that they would have asked for the back structure to not stand out as much and match the rest of the home, not just in color, but also in style. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the structure has been illegally built. Law Director Crites stated that the structure does violate the code without the proper permits. He went on to say that filing a complaint in Common Pleas Court is generally a last result and the Commission can work with the applicant to resolve the matter. Mr. Levere stated that he has learned his lesson and will work to fix the situation. Mr. Mitchell suggested that they ought to Table the Application and have a work session. The committee discussed the second floor of the porch and stated that it is a new structure. Mr. Blanchard stated that the existing foundation is now supporting a second story and he feels some additional research needs to be done to see if the foundation can actually support this. Mr. Levere answered that he believed the foundation was a frost slab with footing. Mr. Riffle agreed the second level of the porch is an attractive structure, but not on this particular home. He stated that they encourage structures to blend in, rather than stand out. Mr. Levere stated that during the construction, he was made aware by State Farm insurance that railings needed to be installed for insurance purposes because a door opens out onto the roof of the porch. Mr. Levere submitted the letter from State Farm with his application. Mr. Burris stated that the committee seems to have no problem with the garage and he questioned if they could go ahead and approve it and have a work session to work on the back porch. Mr. Ryan suggested tabling the entire application, rather than breaking it up. Law Director Crites was asked if the two matters (garage and back porch) could be separated. He answered that this is not typical, but allowable. Mr. Mitchell stated that he would like to see the applicant resubmit the application with ideas on how to make it match the rest of the primary structure. He stated that he fears this structure could someday come before them for a request to make the structure primary living space – as in a bedroom or kitchen addition. Mr. Levere asked for suggestions on how to make the structure better match the home. The applicant and the Planning Commission agreed to a work session at the September 10, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Blanchard stated that it is not their intent to halt the restoration process of Mr. Levere. Mr. Levere stated that he is basically done with work on the outside of the home. Mr. Mitchell moved to Table Application #07-059. Second by Mr. Burris. Roll Call Vote for Application #07-059: Mitchell, Blanchard, Ryan, Burris, Riffle. Motion carried 5-0.
Application #07-059 was tabled. Finding of Fact Approvals
Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Items A, B, D, E, F, G on the Agenda, and he stated that we find them consistent with the relevant sections of the zoning code as outlined by the Village Planner. Second by Mr. Blanchard. The motion was unanimously approved 5-0. Next meeting:
Adjournment: 8:35 pm. Respectfully submitted by:
Planning Minutes 7/23/07
Minutes Members Present: Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Chip Blanchard, Tim Riffle, Tim Ryan
Members Absent: Jackie O’Keefe
Visitors Present: Sharon Sellito, L. Andujar, Jeanne Crumrine, Marc Griffin, Todd Prasher
Also Present; Alison Terry, Village Planner, Mollie Prasher, Clerk of Council; Lauren Repas, Intern
Minutes of July 9: MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. MR. RYAN SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Citizens Comments: none
Douglas Huffman, 410-412 West Broadway - Roof
Rather than being in the AROD, the house is located in the TCOD.
Mr. Huffman wishes to tear off the existing asphalt shingles and replace with new shingles and to replace the plywood sheeting as needed. Marc Griffin, contractor, described the project in detail, saying the material will probably be gray, with 30-year duration, algae resistant, and 120-mile wind resistant. He is pretty sure the owner will go with the gray sample provided tonight. MR.MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-051 FOR ROOF WITH CONDITIONS: (1) THE MATERIAL WILL BE OWENS CORNING DURABLE SHINGLE IN ESTATE GRAY AND (2) IF THAT SPECIFIC SHINGLE IS NOT USED, APPLICANT WILL SHOW THE VILLAGE PLANNER THE REPLACEMENT SHINGLE OR COLOR. MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Lauren Andujar, architect, and Jeanne Crumrine, developer, were present to ask whether the plans they have drawn up for the Speedway Corner could be discussed at the next session. It was agreed to discuss this at a work session on August 13. GPC looked at their design at an earlier meeting (4-23-07), and the applicants have followed GPC’s advice. They will bring in landscaping plan, lighting plan, awning sample and signage package. Michael Novak, 204 Munson Street (1-8-07) The chiropractor on Munson Street has created a significant parking lot and there is a 6’ drop-off into it, which was not part of the original approval. The Commission would like staff to investigate the situation.
Finding of Fact: MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR APPLICATION 07-051, UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE GPC AGENDA OF JULY 23. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Next Meetings: August 13 and 27
Minutes Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Chip Blanchard, Jackie O’Keefe, Tim Riffle, Tim Ryan
Minutes of June 25: On Page 3, Line 4, add the verb advised. MR. RYAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. MITCHELL SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Citizens Comments: none
Mr. Blanchard was also concerned about other issues brought up by the Village Planner regarding zoning regulations. Members discussed each one and agreed by consensus with Ms. Repas that this should be approved anyway because of what the applicant has tried to do to comply with GPC recommendations and because GPC never required these things at work sessions. On Page 8 of the Planner’s memo, Mr. Fackler will cover only 34% of the lot; however, our density requirement is 5,000’ maximum gross square feet per acre. The code offers a density bonus and he is allowed an additional 5,000 feet if he will keep part of it as open space. Possibly the area in front could be a garden with bench, etc.
Regarding landscaping, members felt confident that Mr. Fackler could come up with a presentable appearance. With regard to paint, Ms. Repas said they are trying to get paint chips. Since the zoning code is out of date, it should have said, “Colors that are pre-approved.”
MR. MITCHELL. MOVED TO APPROVE 07-018 CONTINGENT UPON: (1) DEDICATION OF OPEN SPACE ADEQUATE TO QUALIFY FOR DENSITY BONUS, AND (1) LIGHTING PLAN MUST BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ZONING CODE. MR.RYAN SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Erin McClellan, 140 East College St - fence
Mr. Riffle said it is maintenance-free; therefore, less expensive in the long run. Ms. Repas said they did take this into consideration, and because it is a rental, the owner needs it to be easy to take care of. The code asks for no chain link, etc. As far as other materials go, in the AROD it needs to be compatible with other structures. She thought the vinyl would not be shiny.
Mr. Mitchell noted that they have given us three suggestions for locations, and members preferred the one in the back. Mr. Riffle said they must measure height from grade. He likes Location Option #2, side yard from back of carport to front of house. Mr. Blanchard thinks the concept is pleasing and he is fond of the scallop style; however, he would require it be cedar or wolmanized instead of vinyl
MR.RYAN MOVED TO APPROVE 07-047 WITH THE (1) LOCATION TO BE #2, THE BACK YARD AND (2) STYLE TO BE WEYMOUTH SCALLOP, 42” HIGH. MR.MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NAE VOTE (MR. BLANCHARD). Karen Semer, 313 North Granger St. - addition
Ms. Repas said we approved Jerry Martin’s application for white lettering with conditions that he brings the other signs into compliance. But the law director said we must revoke our vote from last week and do a new vote. Mr. Riffle does not know how the Law Director can do this, and Ms. Repas noted that our code says nothing about abandoned signs. He thinks the Law Directors are wrong because once you move out of the building, even though you maintain ownership, and reapply for another application, you start over again.
Mr. Blanchard said everyone hoped the neon sign would be removed MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO VACATE THE DECISION OF 6-9-07 RE APPLICATION 07-045. MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
Minutes Members Present: Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Chip Blanchard, Jackie O’Keefe, Tim Ryan
Minutes of June 11: MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. MR. RYAN SECOND. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Citizens Comments: Dan Rodgers would like us to screen applications and handle minor requests at the Village Planner’s office in order to simplify the procedure. Ms. Repas stated, the code currently specifically lists tasks that can be handled administratively.
Ms. Hollinger explained the plans underway to create a driveway and 900 sq .ft. parking pad/patio. Their driveway requires that they must back out onto State Route 661, an unsafe maneuver on the curve. Most of her neighbors can head out into the street, and they would like to have that privilege as well. Building a driveway and garage in the back yard proved to be too cost-prohibitive, so a patio and turn-around is planned. It will have full screening with evergreen shrubs at shoulder height to help keep road dirt from the house. This plan provides privacy to the neighbors also. They will maintain all existing large trees and plant other vegetation. On the side where the deck currently is has no access; this plan would allow parking space and stairs and help support the foundation and control runoff. A ramp will enter the house as part of the driveway. Some excavation or retaining walls may be needed to repair cracked foundation. This will be determined as they get into the project. Dale Ratcliffe added that in the back yard, everybody’s house is graded to allow run-off into their lot. They will use the same contractor as the Godfreys (next door) used because he knows the concerns about the water. He said they are going to remove some of the older trees and replace with new trees. This will be to the neighbor’s benefit as well as theirs.
Mr. Ryan noted that we are considering this because it is in the TCOD. Ms. Repas said the neighbors have a similar situation and solution. Cars turn around in the neighbor’s driveway. All the neighbors to the south can access their back yards, and neighbors to the north park in the front. Ms. Repas said it’s a technicality where you consider the front. It seems to Mr. Mitchell that the ordinance says they cannot park in the front, and we will have to construe this as the side, not the front. Ms. Repas thought part of it would be on the side and part in the front.
Mr. Mitchell wondered what surface they will put in and Mr. Ratcliff thought it would be concrete or gravel of darker tone, or blacktop. Ms. Hollinger added that whatever they do will be determined by price. They would like to match the existing driveway surface. Only one car can park in the drive now, and they would like to park their two vehicles and leave space for a visitor. There is no street parking.
Mr. Ratcliffe said the existing garage is not useful and has a rotting floor. They will refurbish it later. The drive flares out at the maple tree. He noted that there was a fatal accident into the tree several years ago. Mr. Mitchell said that since this is not in the AROD, we do not have authority over the driveway, but the Planner can approve it. He does not like blacktop. Ms. Hollinger does not like it either, but they want it to look like a patio and want to avoid several different surfaces. Mr. Mitchell asked whether she has considered driveway pavers with grass. Mr. Ratcliff said they would have to take them up every six years. They need to be able to shovel snow.
Ms. O’Keefe asked whether they have spoken to the neighbors, and Mr. Ratcliffe said yes, and that they had no objection. They have had conversations with them about buying a piece of their land. Mr. Mitchell said our decision is about whether the parking is appropriate and legal. The aesthetics are not within our purview, unfortunately, because there will be a lot of paving around the house. MR.BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 07-38 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE FINAL PLANS ARE APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. RYAN SECONDED. MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NAE VOTE (MR. BLANCHARD).
MR. RYAN MOVED TO APPROVE 07-045 FOR THE NEW WHITE VINYL WINDOW SIGN WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE NEON “OPEN” SIGN BE TAKEN DOWN. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Jerry Martin, 116 E. Broadway – Dumpster 07-06-100
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TABLE 07-06-100 AS PER APPLICANT’S REQUEST. MR.RYAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Christopher Campbell, 215 N. Pearl Street – deck – 07-44
The applicant wishes to add a 10’x18’ deck with 4’ railing and stairs leading to the stone patio. The deck will match existing siding and the white railing will have posts. Ms. Repas found all standards were met with possible exception of lot coverage, but the lot lines do not line up; they go through the houses. She estimates the drawing seems to be fine. Mr. Blanchard asked whether he is continuing with the same design as on the front, and Mr. Campbell said on the front there are columns, but it will match the house. The deck will be similar to the front with no synthetic material.
Barbara Franks added that there is no roof on the front. Ms. O’Keefe asked about the door, and Mr. Rodgers is not proposing to put in the door yet; he wants to decide where it will go. Chris Strayer had told him there would be no problem. They will take pictures from the inside, and applicants will restore them to their original positions. Now he is only seeking approval for the siding and roof.
Mr. Mitchell thought that since we have so little definite idea on doors and windows, could this be considered a work session? He thinks we have enough information as to siding, though, and the roof is OK. Mr. Rodgers said that things change. He changes things, depending on how he thinks it should look. The standing seam would work better. He wants approval on the roof and vertical siding so he can get the paper on, and then he can come back later with future plans. He will not remove the clapboard; he wants it all to look the same.
Mr. Burriss suggested taking out one door of the 5, which would allow structural stability of the façade. If that meant the double-hung windows needed to change somehow, that would be OK. It was suggested that Scott come and talk with us at the next meeting, and Mr. Blanchard suggested tabling the application until then. MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO TABLE 07-042 AT THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST PENDING CONVERSATION WITH THE ENGINEER. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Burriss is OK on the rear elevation. The two windows could be made into three. He thinks for the hierarchy of the building, the center cupola needs to be bigger with a weathervane, and the two side cupolas should have lightning rods. Mr. Mitchell doesn’t know whether it makes a difference whether there are glass or louvred lanterns. Mr. Blanchard likes the appearance of a painted panel. With the corrugated steel, the glass lantern is something we don’t want to draw so much attention to. He thinks it can be a painted piece of wood.
Minutes Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Jackie O’Keefe, Tim Riffle, Tim Ryan
Minutes of May 14: MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. MR. RYAN SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Citizens Comments: none Swearing In:
MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE 07-028 WITH STIPULATIONS: (1) THAT A ONE-INCH BORDER IS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF SIGN AND (2) WITH WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 130 N. PROSPECT. MR. RYAN SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. New Business:
Mr. Riffle asked whether there is a decorative trim above the second-floor windows and was told the awning will stop below the decorative trim. They also wish to repaint the building in dark straw, medium cream, and denim blue. MR. RYAN MOVED TO APPROVE 07-39 FOR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING AWNING BASED ON THE COLOR SWATCH SUBMITTED AND TO APPROVE THE ADDITIONAL AWNING ON THE SECOND-FLOOR WINDOWS, REPEATING THE SAME COLOR AND PATTERN AS THOSE ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THE SIGN TEXT ON THE AWNING WILL BE THE SAME SIZE AND WITHIN REGULATIONS OF THE SIGN CODE. MR.BLANCHARD SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Eric and Susan Rosenberg, 395 N. Pearl Street – windows, doors, skylights 07-040
Mr. Rosenberg said all they are doing is replacing what is already there by upgrading the ‘50s house, with double hung windows and French doors like a greenhouse for ventilation. The openings are narrower but longer. The open space will be filled with trim. There is only a concrete block sill, and they will add trim. They are thinking about glass block on the west elevation for the bathroom. He described the plan for window replacement on the north, the east, and the west. Mr. Blanchard asked whether we have guidelines for skylights, and whether the neighbors have been consulted. Mr. Holycross said that he is unaware of guidelines. Mr. Rosenberg has not heard of any neighbors’ discontent; in fact, the closest neighbor was in the audience and spoke in favor of the skylights. The skylights will not be visible from the street. MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE 07-040 FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WITH ADDITIONS OF WINDOWS AND SKYLIGHTS AS SUBMITTED ON THE NORTH, EAST, AND WEST ELEVATIONS. MR. RYAN SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Riffle noted that the home on College Street, once owned by Lisa McKivergin, was bought by a new owner, who left off the siding and trim. The corners were supposed to match, but they do not. Mr. Holycross said they looked at the minutes and the conditions and he cannot find anything stating that they had to meet what was there originally. The application says that the materials were wood lapboard siding, wood trim. The new owner stripped off things without approval. He came in and he was told to replace the trim. {See Minutes August 22, 2005} Adjournment: 8:14 p.m.
Minutes Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Jackie O’Keefe, Tim Riffle, Tim Ryan
Citizens Comments: George Fackler requested a work session following this meeting. Swearing In:
.Ms. Hammond said she wants sitting space on the east side of the double door at the front of her store because: (2) this is the shady side of the street, and (2) they are at a disadvantage on the south side of the street because there are no restaurants. Chairs and tables will encourage people to come across the street to sit and relax. There will be no umbrellas. Two tables would be near the storefront and the other nearer the road. She hopes to offer coffee tasting—not for sale, but it would be available in the Gift Basket department. Since there are no designs provided, Mr. Burriss noted that for the other side of the street, plans were submitted for furniture; he also asked about trash cans. Ms Hammond said she will have a trash can against the building and will take care of dumping it every day. The sidewalk has 30’ depth, and there would be 12-15’ of clear sidewalk. Mr. Blanchard said on special event occasions, the tables might be an issue, but Ms. Hammond said it is right where her awning drops. She will leave the furniture up and place her sidewalk sign where coffee cannot drip on it.
Butch Mills explained that they would like to paint “Huntington Bank parking only” on each of their 22 parking spaces. Ms. Repas noted that this request has been approved at this building in the past, but not acted upon. Mr. Burriss wants signs saying parking allowed during non-banking hours.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-025 AND 07-026 AS SUBMITTED. MR.BLANCHARD SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. All State Insurance, 120 N. Prospect – Signs
Max Torabi, from Allstate, wishes to keep signs already installed on two windows and add a sidewalk sign. The window signs exceed our maximum size code, but the freestanding sign adheres to the code. Prior to this meeting, Kristin Darfus, who owns the building, announced that she does not want signs on the doors (doors entering the building), but she would allow a sign on the second floor. She would allow the freestanding sign. Mr. Torabi has never met this lady and has dealt only with her husband. He wants to adhere to the code. Mr. Riffle suggested that it would be wise to table this application until the two parties come to an agreement. He said our Law Director finds Ms. Darfus within her rights to deny signage on the entrance/exit doors.
Denison applied to put up (1) a permanent sign in front of their service building and (2) erect a temporary sign for the Cleveland Hall construction. Sign 1 will be 30’ from center of the road and Sign 2 will be on west side of the College Street entrance. Art Chonko does not yet know what the construction sign will say, but it will not be a huge sign, mostly set there for safety. Ms. Repas said the latter application will not be effective until the pending appeal regarding the Cleveland Hall addition is resolved. MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE 07-024 FOR (1) PERMANENT SIGN AT SERVICE BUILDING AND (2) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SIGN PENDING (1) FINAL APPROVAL BY VILLAGE COUNCIL AND (2) OPPORTUNITY FOR THE VILLAGE PLANNER IN CONJUNCTION WITH ART CHONKO FOR APPROPRIATE LOCATION. MR. MITCHELL SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
In redesigning the Service Building, Denison wishes to also redesign the parking lot and curb cuts to allow easier access. Mr. Burriss would like to see more screening of the parking area and recommended hedges, eventually 30’ high, along the driveway without cutting the visibility. He suggested approving the application conditional upon a plan for screening the lot. Mr. Riffle suggested putting screening in small clusters.
Ms. O’Keefe noted that usually the Tree and Landscape Committee is consulted before final approval of a plan. MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE 07-023 FOR REWORKING ADDITIONAL PARKING IN FRONT OF THE PHYSICAL PLANT ON NORTH PEARL STREET UPON CONDITION THAT MS. REPAS HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH ART CHONKO ON FINAL SCREENING STRATEGY FOR THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPOSED LOT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: Mr. Pete Ullman has lived here all his life, as have his grandparents, who owned the drugstore. He cannot believe the GPC could be representing the Village of Granville in administering the AROD code and approving the two-story “flashcube” at Cleveland Hall. He believes those who approved the vote should be “man enough to rescind their error and save a lot of time for Village Council.” Swearing In:
.Ms. Repas said the bank wishes to replace the green and white text on their old plastic sign with blue background and white text as pictured on the application. Mr. Randy Durham said it will be outside only during hours of operation and will be located right in front of the building along the sidewalk. Mr. Riffle noted that it needs to be where it will not impede pedestrian traffic. Mr. Durham said there are other sidewalk signs in the sidewalk, and Ms. Repas will look into this situation and correct it. Ms. Repas will approve final location.
Tod Frolking explained that his wife has had her shop for three years. The first year it was at 120 E. Broadway and then she moved down the street, but 120 is better because there is a wall and it is less congested without less visibility. Prudential wants the flower stand there. MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE AS A RECOMMENDATION TO VILLAGE COUNCIL TO PERMIT THE FLOWER STAND. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Blanchard thought tan would complement better than white, and Mr. Burriss agreed. John Thornborough noted that GPC spent a considerable amount of time on the design of this building and came up with an attractive building. He is not sure their warranty problems should cause GPC to change. Dennis Couchon added that if this is an issue of safety, that would be different, but this is not a matter of safety. GPC should not be working at the convenience of a fast food restaurant.
Mr. Quinn said they are not trying to get out of anything, but the warranty is a problem and they don’t want to have to keep replacing windows. Ms. O’Keefe noted that Arby’s has bent over backwards to please the GPC.
MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE 07-024 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT MS. REPAS AND/OR A MEMBER OF GPC HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW AND APPROVE THE TAN COLOR AND MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE. THE DEFAULT IS WHITE, BUT THE COMMISSION HOPES TAN WILL BE THE SELECTION. MR.BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Finding of Fact: MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN MS. REPAS’S MEMO OF APRIL 23. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Skip the “Chicago” window with broad windows on either side. Jeanne Cummins
Questions for Lauren Repas – Follow-up: 1. Mt. Parnassus property. Our Engineer has not yet spoken to the owner. They are dumping junk over the hill; they have screened it but it is not adequate. It’s a safety issue if they are dumping spoils down the hill and it slides down. We need to ask the Law Director about this
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSIONApril 9, 2007Minutes
Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Jack Burriss, Jackie O'Keefe, Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle, Members Absent: Carl WilkenfeldVisitors Present: Eleanor Cohen, John Thornborough, Audrey, Orville, and Melonie Orr, Bill Hugus, Dennis CauchonAlso Present: Lauren Repas, Interim Village PlannerMinutes of March 26: MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.Citizens Comments: noneSwearing In:New Business:
Orville and Audrey Orr, 124 and 128 S. Pearl -Rezoning Mr. Orr explained that the request is to change the zoning from Residential to VBD-A to allow for four guest rooms in each house. The "A" is just for motels, hotels, or inns. Mr. Blanchard asked how ingress and egress is to be handled, and Mr. Orr said they have parking behind the homes, and entrance is from Broadway. They want to keep it that way, but driveways could be added if they have to for fire trucks. Mr. Mitchell noted that we take rezoning very seriously, and if there is another way to change a residential property to business, he would like to explore it. Ms. O'Keefe asked how the Porch House Bed and Breakfast on Maple Street is zoned, and Ms. Repas said it was established before the current code was adopted. Mr. Riffle noted that they have the houses now and they are probably in better shape than they were before. As part of a complex, he would rather see it being used and would have no problem with overnight guests there. Mr. Blanchard thinks the restoration is encouraging. Mr. Burriss would like to see the houses not used for storage. Given the long history the Orrs have of property maintenance, as long as it is consistent with the other houses on the block, he is in favor of it. Mr. Mitchell is concerned about the parking, and Mr. Orr said it is safer to have it in the rear. Mr. Riffle added that some leniency is necessary, for there is a real shortage of parking spaces in town. Eleanor Cohen, neighbor, thought that previously the zoning for guest houses was VRD with Variance, but now that is no longer how it is done. She has no objection as long as it is just for overnight guests. She feels there is adequate parking, and people should not park on Pearl or Broadway overnight. Mr. Riffle thought we could tell the Orrs to ask guests not to park there. Neighbor Dennis Cauchon is in favor of the rezoning. He talked to some of his neighbors and they were in favor of it. It will enhance the neighborhood.
William Hugus Architects, 132-142 N. Prospect St. - Remodel MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TAKE THIS OFF THE TABLE; MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Hugus explained the changes presented this evening. (1) replace 3 awnings on the facade to cover up the crack. The two flanking awnings are shallower and only project 3' instead of 4' in order to give prominence to the main entrance. (2) He has submitted colors to Ms. Repas. (3) Instead of working with the aluminum storefronts, they will just lock the doors for now. (4) He explained how the louvres will look and how the ducts will work. They can be painted to match the brick. (5) AC units will be 15' from the edge of the building. Ms. O'Keefe asked how the fumes will be kept under control, and Mr. Hugus said the fan on the roof is 15' from the edge, in the middle of the building, and it exhausts vertically. They have a charcoal filtering system in the hood itself to catch the grease. Ms. Repas noted that they are doing this the right way rather than doing it the cheaper way. MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-014 AS PER THE PACKAGE PRESENTED TONIGHT. MR.BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Finding of Fact: MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN MS. REPAS'S MEMO OF APRIL 9. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Questions for Lauren Repas: 1. Mt. Parnassus property. The Engineer will work with the owner. What about the disposal of dirt?2. Neon sign at the Wine Shop3. Dumpster enclosure at Brew's4. CVS needs to repair the holes and take down the sign on the windowAdjournment: 7:55 p.m.Next Meeting: April 23. We will be notified as to the change for Memorial Day.Respectfully submitted,Betty Hullinger
Planning Minutes 3/26/07
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSIONMARCH 26, 2007Minutes Members Present: Melissa Hartfield (for Jackie O'Keefe), Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle, Carl WilkenfeldMembers Absent: Jack BurrissVisitors Present: William Hugus, George Fackler, Gloria HooverOthers Present: Lauren Repas, Interim PlannerMinutes of March 12: MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.Citizens Comments: noneSwearing in of WitnessesNew Business: William Hugus, Architects, 132-142 N. Prospect Street - Remodelling Ms. Repas stated that the plans originally distributed have changed slightly, but there is less development on the building now. The vent on the roof above the middle door is to be removed and another one added to take its place. There was to be an AC unit on the corner but it will be on the roof. For the client, Mr. Hugus described the plans by saying the tall windows have been lowered. They were not happy with the façade so they would like to redo the front with wood and a wooden door. They will take the awnings off since they are too low and make the inside too dark. Also, there are two big trees that block the light. They will add one soft green awning at the front door and try to hide the crack in the wall. Smaller awnings to match the central one will be planned later and signage will be planned later. One AC/heating unit will be used for the entire space, gas-fired with fresh air intakes. In the rear a new cooking hood will be installed, 15' from the edge of the roof where the kitchen fumes will exit. It will not be visible from the street. The business is to be a gourmet pizza restaurant with rich furnishings in a neighborhood friendly place. The owner also owns Rossi in the Short North. Mr. Riffle asked about the metal color and it was described in detail. It will match the building. Mr. Blanchard noted the transom over the door would disappear and was told it does not match, but they will need to create an opening. They cannot add the duct up the side because of the tenant's lease. Mr. Mitchell noted that by taking off the two side awnings you will make the aluminum more obvious, but Mr. Hugus said they will come back with awning plans later, but they want to agree on signage first, but he also would like to cover up the aluminum.Mr. Hugus is about at the point to continue more detailed engineering and would like to return in two weeks. He described the side and rear doors. Mr. Riffle would prefer to see one door only. He said this is a major improvement over what was thereNext door neighbor Gloria Hoover spoke for the nearby residents, stating this will be a tremendous addition and a great improvement. The east wall has full view of everyone on East College, so they are concerned about appearances. There is also a concern about fumes and noise from the exhaust system, especially in view of the fact the restaurant may be open until 2:30 a.m. and residents want to sit outdoors in the summer without exhaust and fabric softener odors. They want a pedestrian friendly area. MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE THIS AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. George Fackler, 2326 Newark-Granville Road - Demolition Ms. Repas said the new standards for TCOD are the ones to be used, not the demolition standards. GPC members had to problem with the recommendation to demolish the existing building. It will be replaced with a two-story barn-like structure. MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR DEMOLITION. MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Finding of Fact: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF MARCH 26. MR. MITCHELL SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Adjournment: 7:50 p.m. Next Meetings: April 9 and 23Respectfully submitted,Betty Hullinger
Planning Minutes 3/12/07
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSIONMarch 12, 2007Minutes
Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Jackie O'Keefe, Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle, Carl Wilkenfeld, Jack BurrissMembers Absent: noneVisitors Present: Bill Wernet, Roger KesslerOthers Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner, Lauren Repas, Interim Planner Minutes of February 26: MR.BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.Citizens Comments: noneSwearing in of Witnesses:New Business: William Lavender, 57 Westgate Drive - Sign
Mr. Strayer explained that in the past we have approved a free-standing sign for them, and now they want two new signs facing Cherry Valley Road: (1) 4'x8' on the property and (2) 30"x48" on the building itself. We have allowed, under temporary sign permit, one 4x8 for commercial properties, and Mr. Strayer does not recommend two signs. It makes no difference whether it is free-standing or on the side of the building. Mr. Riffle said we can approve and let them decide where to place it. MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 07-012 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THEY CAN PUT ONE 4'X8' SIGN EITHER ON THE BUILDING OR ON THE GROUND. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Other Business River Road Proposed Zoning Proposed zoning changes for River Road have been in the works for three years, Mr. Strayer reported, and a property owner now wants water and sewer on River Road, but Village Council was not ready to extend without annexation. We looked at the entire area and went through a master reviewing process, and Council is asking for GPC input since a PUD would go through GPC. In the event of phased development, we would have it built out consistently across the board, but it would require new zoning. Mr. Blanchard asked whether the majority of the zoning would mirror that of the village, and Mr. Strayer said some of it would, i.e., lighting, design, signage. Ms. O'Keefe asked about greenspace and was told they went with a smaller minimum than the 10% minimum in the past, as per Keith Meyers' recommendation. Since there are significant water issues there, with the lake and flood plain occupying about 30 acres, those areas cannot be built on anyway. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether drive-throughs would be permitted and was told yes, as part of a larger plan, but it must be in the rear. Mr. Strayer said they left things off to allow more flexibility because this is a planned development which would have to be approved by GPC. There are a lot of details in standards listed while leaving the uses wide open. In the township everything is a conditional use, so they can deny anything based on requirements in the code. Flexibility provides GPC and Village Council more discretion for them. We do not have variances for uses. You cannot list every possible business that might arise. Mr. Riffle noted there are some things we would not think appropriate but which would be OK under these uses, such as Lion's Dens. Mr. Strayer said it is unconstitutional to prohibit businesses like Lions' Dens, for which the code would need to be amended. Mr. Riffle suggested saying "such as…" Mr. Wernet represents one of the people impacted by this, and he agrees with Mr. Riffle in that it puts GPC in a difficult position. You could have a list "including but not limited to…." Putting things on a list would reduce the need of an applicant to come before GPC. The more a developer can get rid of uncertainties, the better off everyone is. Mr. Strayer does not disagree, but in this situation the way our codes are set up everything comes to GPC anyway. To do what you are talking about is a policy decision to be determined by V.C. Mr. Mitchell agrees with Mr. Wernet. It's pro-development to have a strict set of guidelines. It's anti-developer when it is harder. Mr. Strayer repeated we tried to make it simple. Design is a hard to make detailed enough for a code. It does not say it has to be of historic significance. Mr. Riffle asked why AROD was named and was told for consistency; it does not say this is an AROD, but their standards should be considered and have the same flavor.But Mr. Riffle thought there is not a lot of architectural significance on River Road, and everything down there is grandfathered. You can't make it look like Granville.Roger Kessler noted the concept for the steering committee of the developer is simple. Around the lake they wanted nice condos. Along Mr. Barton's property they wanted mixed use-retail, office, apartments above, and along the railroad tracks that would be for restaurants, summing up: (1) residential, (2) mixed use, (3) services. Mr. Mitchell asked about the residential density and was told 10 units per acre would be permitted. Mr. Mitchell added the trend is to limit the number of new housing to control for fewer children in the schools. He is concerned that some real numbers ought to be built into the ordinance to create a way to keep these from being single-family residences. Mr. Strayer said they are considering fees in lieu of bigger developments Mr. Riffle suggested listing the maximum height rather than just 2 stories, but Mr. Strayer said under a PUD we consider the entire area and the height of the neighboring buildings. Zoning Code Amendments
1137.02: The Village Planner can back-charge the property owner for any repairs we have to make. He may be asked to tear it down. A property maintenance code is not in here but could be added someday.
1133.03: That Village Council can appeal any decision GPC makes was not an idea heartily endorsed by GPC members.
1137.01: Mr. Wernet is concerned that people do not show up for GPC meetings until the last meeting, when a decision is to be made. There should be an article in the SENTINEL telling what is going on. He suggested putting a link on the email list so people can learn what is on the agenda. Mr. Mitchell noted that the press is not here tonight.
Resolution: Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted GPC to prepare a Resolution of Thanks to Mr. Strayer for his 3 1/2 years of excellent service. Mr. Strayer will be moving to Canal Winchester on March 22 to be their Development Director in charge of planning and zoning. He will have a staff of five, will make more money, and be involved with economic development.Finding of Fact: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN MR. STRAYER'S MEMO OF MARCH 12. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NAY VOTE (MR. WILKENFELD). Adjournment: 8:45 p.m.Next Meetings: March 26 and April 9Respectfully submitted,Betty Hullinger GranvilleVillage
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSIONFebruary 26, 2007Minutes
Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Jackie O'Keefe, Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle, Carl Wilkenfeld, Jack BurrissMembers AbsentVisitors Present: Jessica Rettig, Walter Palasky, Kevin Zeppernick, Art Chonko, Dennis Cauchon, Steven Grisson, Jim and Joy Jung, Bill Wernet, Seth Patton, Marc and Ginny Clemente, Brian Miller, John Thornborough, Ron Allean, Scott Walker, Jim Siegel, George Fackler, Denny Ghiloni, Pauline Kale Minutes of January 8: MR.BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.Citizens Comments: noneSwearing in of Witnesses:New Business: Kevin Zeppernick, 429 Mt. Parnassus - addition
Mr. Strayer explained that they are asking an addition plus a new 3-car garage to replace the old one. Since it is larger than 25%, it needs to come before the GPC. Mr. Zeppernick said the house had mold when they bought it, and a condition of sale was to remove it. In the process, they plan to give the house a new personality and a French country feel. Window sizes are all the same, and there will be a new front porch. The roof will be tied onto a small porch. Mr. Blanchard asked how close it would be to the next building, and Mr. Zeppernick said it will actually be inside the 12' side setback, adding 2' to the existing footprint. It's a steep hill and they will regrade the south side. Mr. Blanchard asked about the grading and water runoff, and Mr. Zeppernick said there had been a retaining wall there for 55 years.Mr. Burris asked about the siding material, and was told they will match lapboard with hardy pine or something else. Ms. O'Keefe asked about the different roof heights and was told it's for the cathedral ceiling insideMr. Blanchard thinks it is a fabulous plan and a vast improvement, and with the investment involved, he is sure the materials will be excellent. Mr. Zeppernick said they have not yet decided on the external material, but he can bring it to the next meeting.
Marjorie Eckhart - 3400 Milner Road - Lot Split As instructed by our Law Director in a previous application, a lot split of greater than 5 acres is permitted through the ORC; therefore, we must approve. Although land-locked, the parcels will be accessed through a 20' easement. MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-009 AS SUBMITTED; MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Windstream, 131 East Broadway - SignWindstream, the new telephone company, is requesting a sign changing Alltel to Windstream above the door. Steve Grissom, District Manager, explained that they will keep the leaded glass and the new sign will be a little smaller than the original. MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 07-010 AS SUBMITTED. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Old Business: Jessica Rettig, 111 West College St. - Addition Ms. Rettig showed a new design for roof pitch with parallel rooflines on the top, which would look better than matching east and west but may not be matching pitch. Mr. Riffle noted that the drawings do not accurately match the house. When you look to the east of the house, the roof is completely different from what is drawn, but, he noted, it's not as bad as he thought it would be. Ms. Rettig tried to explain the drawings. Mr. Riffle asked about gable vs. hip and she said they would leave one front quarter as a hip and the back as a hip and leave the gable in front. Upon being asked why she would want to do a gable, she replied it would be less obtrusive to the neighbor. Mr. Burris thought with the height it is, the hip makes good sense. MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 06-170 AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONDITION THAT (1) THE HOUSE BE REPAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING COLORS AND (2) EAST SIDE GABLE IS NOT GOING TO BE CHANGED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS WE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Originally he wanted to put the addition in the back, but he did not want to put a driveway all the way through the property. He is meeting setback requirements; it will be 65' in the front and 40' in the side setback. The applicant explained exactly where the building would be located; the front is off Fairview. After measuring carefully, he promises that the trees will remain. There will be swing doors and divided sash windows. Mr. Riffle noted that it is sitting on concrete footers so they will just bore holes and pour concrete. MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 06-161 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE VILLAGE PLANNER WILL GO OUT AND DOUBLECHECK THE LOCATION OF THE PLACE UNDER BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY AND (2) THE COLOR SCHEME FOR THE BUILDING IS PER PICTURE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT (WHITE BOARD AND BATTEN). MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Benjamin Burton, 224 East Broadway - Signage The freestanding sign was OK at the previous meeting. It will be black and white, placed on existing pole, and the plastic sidewalk sign will be black, white, and red. Mr. Conkle said the sign will be inside the sidewalk on the lawn of the ROW. The middle portion will be changeable dry erase, as they are hoping to entice people at the Inn and other places to highlight special events or items for sale similar to other signs in the village. There is no other way to let people know what is going on in that building; a lattice partially blocks the front window. Mr. Burris thought the sign would look better and be more consistent with other signs if it had a black border, and Mr. Conkey said a one-inch border was his intention. MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-002 FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN AND A SIDEWALK SIGN AS PRESENTED. THE FREESTANDING SIGN WILL INCLUDE A ONE-INCH BORDER AROUND THE EDGE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Denison University - Cleveland Hall Art Chonko said Denison wants to put an addition onto the 100-year-old Cleveland Hall, starting in May. The architect explained the Greenwich Village firm's history and some of the buildings they have built. The direction they are planning has 4 components: (1) Adapt and reuse the historic building; (2) addition of new studio space; (3) addition of new administrative wing; and (4) a foundry. There will be exterior and interior contrast between the old building and the addition floating on the masonry. They envision lots of light, transparent, translucent with channel glass, on a stone base. They will plant the building into the landscape and build into the hill. On the rear side, stairs will up the building, so it will be a real rear elevation. Four floors are joined together inside. To a question by Ms. O'Keefe about the stark contrast, he said the contrast is appropriate to the existing building and highlights it. Architects no longer replicate what's there previously. He described the materials, saying the glass has a calming, soothing effect. Mr. Riffle was concerned about the amount of light from inside coming off the building, thinking the building will glow, even with some diffusion from the channel. The architect reassured him it would not. Mr. Chonko said they will keep as many original materials as they can. Mr. Riffle asked how are they going to keep things off the windows, and was told there is not much wall space so they will add screens and pin-up walls. Mr. Burris thinks this would be an exciting place for an art student, but it's hard to be excited about the flashcube, although he is in favor of the plan. Upon being asked whether College Street will be made into a promenade, he answered No, they will take it to the Streets and Sidewalks Committee, said Mr. Chonko. Consensus of the group was not in favor of closing off College Street. But Mr. Burriss would consider College Street being paved in a different way. Mr. Burriss asked whether there was lighting control in the studio and was told not currently, but it works at Sarah Lawrence well. He asked whether the night lighting would be equal elements or glow, with consistency of lighting or a band of light. The man said the lighting plan will be the same on both floors and depend on how the studios are set up. He thinks the two floors will be about even with an R-4 value. Mr. Riffle would like to see a sample of glass and of siding. It would be helpful to see a cut sheet of lighting. Mr. Chonko said there will be lighting outside, directed down and made very subtle. There will be no landscaping, noted Mr. Chonko; some trees will be removed and then replaced. Mr. Blanchard finds the west elevation the most pleasing. The architect said they have a very appropriate solution to dealing with this historic building in this location. The program they wanted was a challenge, and they have solved it very well. Law Director Gorey explained the public hearing process, as described in 1141.05 and the categories of persons who may be heard: (1) applicant; (2) owner of property that is the subject of the application; (3) owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous; and (4) another person who claims that an injury or prejudice to him or his property if approved or denied. On appeal one of these criteria must be applicable. Mr. Chonko provided a lighting plan with fixtures, all of which meet criteria. He described the lights and showed where on the building they would be. To see how much light diffuses from the sample, the lights were turned off and a flashlight was beamed through the glass. Mr. Riffle asked about materials and Mr. Chonko provided a sample of the glass wall. He said the frame is grey and has zinc material which will age in time. Jack Thornborough (Category 4) is eager to maintain the village's historic district and feels this plan would damage the character of the village. He thinks this is a good plan but does not belong in downtown Granville and does not adhere to the codeJoy Jung said they came before GPC for a porch and were told to make changes and move the skylights. They spent a lot of money to ensure the building would abide by the historic district and feels Denison should adhere to the code, for the lights will shine onto her house at a 90° angle. They will not live long enough for the trees which Mr. Chonko promised to mature. Jim Jung seconded his wife's concerns, saying he was told that the west side lights were not acceptable because they are in the historic district and would cause light pollution on Broadway. How can Denison avoid light pollution in the historic district with this plan? Dennis Couchon said the real issue is does it comply with the law, and it clearly does not, particularly in the list of styles in the code. Mark Clemante and his wife Ginny moved to the village because they knew that Granville had strict architectural rules. He was before GPC with plans to add onto his house and was told GPC had concerns about the fact that his window was not centered. He does not think trees will cover up the Cleveland light, which will shine in his bedroom window. He feels it will hurt his property value. Ron Abram, chairman of the Art Department, said one of the things they wanted their students to learn is to know they are not creating art in a small studio but to the world at large. The architect thought there should be light beaming out and more transparency. Students will always be conscientious about the world at large outside the windows., He feels they were lucky to have architects who recognize and connect the past and the future in their plans. Bill Wernet (Category 3 and 4) wants to make sure Jack Thornborough's letter is part of the record, since it talks about stylistic compatibility and improving historic character . He is concerned about his property value since he spent a lot of money on his house and does not like the proposed plan and feels it does not meet 1161 restrictions. Mr. Chonko said one of the goals of historic reconstruction is that they do not want the building to look like the old part, and they went to a lot of effort to keep the historic integrity of the original building. So it does meet the historic character because they do not want them to compete. It may not be well received, but some believe that it is OK. Mr. Riffle noted that most of the styles in Granville are considered not appropriate for buildings, and Mr. Thornborough countered that the code was written after they were built. In the AROD we should make an attempt top keep on with the style. Why not put this up on the college campus? What Denison has built recently has been in the style of the college. In this plan students cannot commune with nature anyhow because they can't see through the windows. Mr. Gorey said the code is ambiguous but fairly clear that given the specifications, GPC is not bound by the styles in 1161 but should be compatible. Mr. Mitchell noted that if a resident came to us with a "flashcube" request, he suspects GPC would say No. It does not seem like a hardship case to him. Although he likes the plan, Mr. Wilkenfeld expressed doubts tonight after listening to the residents. This is a great departure and feels Mr. Thornborough's comments are sensible. Isn't there another way to design this plan to everyone's satisfaction? There are many other ways, noted Mr. Riffle, but this is what we are presented with tonight. Ms. Clemente said Denison is very powerful and this structure is right across the street, so she pleads emotionally for good neighbors who appreciate what their neighbors want and not change the character of the neighborhood. Paul Jakob thinks this plan is bizarre and does not agree with the ordinances. Jim Siegel and his wife Nancy have been part of the village for 56 years and he supports all the comments with the exception of Mr. Abram. He would hate to see this construction added to this great building. Mr. Thornborough thinks there are other possibilities architecturally to build a building that that lets in a lot of light that matches besides this stark modern glass use. Ms. O'keefe thinks this is a very hard decision, and she understands Denison's philosophy, but we have to follow the code. Mr. Blanchard has expressed specific concerns before and does not feel they have been addressed. Mr. Wilkenfeld added this is not an easy decision. He likes it but GPC is charged with interpreting the code. "We are good at what we do and this flies in the face of what we do." He owes it to the people of Granville to deny the application. Mr. Burriss appreciates folks telling us their feelings and he wishes we had people show up at other projects. There are times when decisions are difficult, and part of what we do as a commission is not always going with our personal opinions but together with what we feel is appropriate for the code. Mr. Mitchell also feels it's a tough decision. He does not like the building but thinks he will vote for it because it does not dilute or damage the integrity of this design. If it was across the street from him, he would vote for it. He is well aware of the historic character and this seems to meet the code because of his interpretation of maintaining the character but not having it match. Mr. Riffle does not like the building and modern architecture. He has worked with historic preservation people and a decision is difficult. Personal feelings aside, we are bound by the code and our attorney's comments.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-003 WITH CONDITIONS: (1) FOR SIDING, USE THOSE FURNISHED TONIGHT AND (2) USE THE LIGHTING PLAN SUBMITTED TONIGHT. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY A 3-2 VOTE (MR. BLANCHARD AND MR. WILKENFELD VOTED NAY). Finding of Fact: MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A,B,C,D UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND A,B, AND C UNDER OLD BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN MR. STRAYER'S MEMO OF FEBRUARY 26. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NAY VOTE (MR. WILKENFELD). Work Session: George Fackler, Newark-Granville Road Their power equipment is a big seller and they propose a new barn-like structure to the east of their main building. They will be selling wine. They want to separate the store from the power equipment, and the store will have an awning. For the building it is designed at 4800 s.f., and the maximum is 4000. The second floor is for offices, and there will be an office on the first floor as well. Mr. Burris said we would be interested in seeing material samples and placement , and he likes the barn-like idea. He feels there should be a more obvious front entrance. Mr. Strayer said the Village Council needs to approve the demolition, but since it is outside the AROD and building a new building in the exact location, it may not be necessary. Mr. Fackler will come back on March 26, and we could have another work session before that.
Adjournment: 9:30 p.m.Next Meetings: March 12 and 26Respectfully submitted,Betty Hullinger GranvilleVillage
(Editor's Note: The decisions on Planning Commission applications that were made at this meeting were later invalidated because notice of the meeting had not been published in the Granville Sentinel.) GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSIONJanuary 22, 1907Draft Minutes Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Jack Burriss, Jackie O'Keefe, Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle, Carl WilkenfeldMembers Absent: noneVisitors Present: Kevin Zeppernick, Jessica Rettig, Walter Palasky, Art Chonko, Dennis CauchonAlso Present: Chris Strayer, Village PlannerMinutes of January 8: MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.Citizens Comments: noneSwearing In:Old Business: Jessica Rettig, 111 West College Street - Addition At the last meeting we took a vote, which came out 2-1, and since it needed three votes for a decision, it was tabled. Ms. Rettig said the only concern was matching slope and pitch of the existing home and height between east and west side. She showed a new design for the roof pitch with parallel rooflines on top, which would look better than matching east and west. Mr. Riffle noted the drawings do not accurately match the house. Ms. Rettig explained the discrepancy and described the roof as being hip and gable. Mr. Burriss thought with the height it is, the hip makes good sense. MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT (1) THE HOUSE BE REPAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING COLORS AND (2) EAST SIDE GABLE IS NOT GOING TO BE CHANGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS WE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH. MR WILKENFELD SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Walter Palasky The application continues to be tabled at applicant's request. Benjamin Burton, 224 East Broadway - Signage The freestanding sign was approved at the last meeting, but we wanted to see the sidewalk sign design. Mr. Conkle said it will be inside the sidewalk on the lawn of the ROW. Mr.Blanchard asked the purpose of the sign and was told the changeable middle portion of the dry erase board is to highlight special events for visitors in town. The sign is to let people know what is going on in that building. Mr. Burriss thought it would look better to have a border around the sign, and Mr. Conkey said that was his intention. MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FREE-STANDING SIGN AND SIDEWALK SIGN. THE FREE-STANDING SIGN WILL INCLUDE A ONE-INCH BORDER AROUND THE EDGE. MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. New Business: Kevin Zeppernick, 429 Mt. Parnassus - Addition The applicant wishes to remove the existing garage and replace it with a new structure. Since it's larger than 25% more, it needs to come before the GPC. Mr. Zeppernick said the house had mold when they bought it, and a condition of sale was to remove it. In the process, they plan to give the house a new personality and a French country feel. Window sizes are all the same, and there will be a new front porch. The roof will be tied onto a small porch. Mr. Blanchard asked how close it would be to the next building, and Mr Zeppernick said it will actually be inside the 12' side setback, adding 2' to the existing footprint. It's a steep hill and they will regrade the south side. Mr. Blanchard asked about the grading and water runoff, and Mr. Zeppernick said there has been a retaining wall there for 55 years. Mr. Burriss asked about the siding material and was told they will match lapboard with hardy pine board and batten or something else. Ms. O'Keefe asked about the different roof heights and was told it's for the cathedral ceiling inside. Mr. Burriss thinks the higher height works better. There will be a gas fireplace, the duct work for which will go up the existing chimney. They will have the final engineering plans prepared soon. Mr. Riffle said we need to know the siding and roof material. Mr. Strayer thought it could be approved contingent upon exterior material. Mr. Blanchard thinks it is a fabulous plan and a vast improvement, and with the investment involved, he is sure the materials will be excellent. Mr. Zeppernick said they have not yet decided on the external material, but he can bring it to the next meeting. MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-008 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE EXTERIOR FINISH PACKAGE IS NOT APPROVED AT THIS MEETING, BUT THE PACKAGE WILL BE SUBMITTED BY THE APRIL 23 MEETING FOR REVIEW, AND NO FINISHES WILL BE APPLIED TO EXTERIOR UNTIL IT IS APPROVED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Denison University - Cleveland Hall Addition Mr. Chonko explained the addition planned for the 100-year-old Cleveland to be started in May. Mr. Maxwell(?), architect, explained the Greenwich Village firm's history and some of the buildings they have built. The direction they are planning has 4 components: (1) adapt and reuse the historic building; (2) addition of new studio space; (3) addition of new administrative wing; and (4) a foundry. There will be exterior and interior contrast between the old building and the addition, which floats on the masonry. They envision lots of light, transparent, translucent with channel glass, on a stone base. They will plant the building into the landscape and build into the hill. On the rear, stairs will go up the building, so it will be a real rear elevation. Four floors are joined together inside. To a question by Ms. O'Keefe about the stark contrast, he said the contrast is appropriate to the existing building and highlights it. Architects no longer replicate what's there previously. He described the materials, saying the glass has a calming, soothing effect. Mr. Riffle was concerned about the amount of light from inside coming off the building, thinking the building will glow, even with some diffusion from the channel. The architect reassured him it would not. Mr. Chonko said they will keep as many original materials as they can. Mr. Riffle asked how are they going to keep paintings and other paper off the windows and was told there is not much wall space so they will add screens and pin-up walls. Mr. Burriss thinks this would be an exciting place for an art student, but it's hard to be excited about the flashcube, although he is in favor of the plan. Upon being asked whether College Street will be made into a promenade, Mr. Chonko answered No, they will take it to the Streets and Sidewalks Committee. Consensus of the group was not in favor of closing off College Street. But Mr. Burriss would consider College Street being paved in a different way. Mr. Burriss asked whether there was lighting control in the studio and was told not currently, but it works at Sarah Lawrence well. He asked whether the night lighting would be equal elements or glow, with consistency of lighting or a band of light. The architect said the lighting plan will be the same on both floors and depend on how the studios are set up. He thinks the two floors will be about even with an R-4 value. Mr. Riffle would like to see a sample of glass and of siding. It would be helpful to see a cut sheet of lighting. Mr. Chonko said there will be lighting outside, directed down and made very subtle. There will be no landscaping, noted Mr. Chonko; some trees will be removed and then replaced. Mr. Blanchard finds the west elevation the most pleasing, but he wishes he felt better about the other sides. The architect said they have a very appropriate solution to dealing with this historic building in this location. The program Denison wanted was a challenge, and they have solved it very well. Citizen Dennis Couchon stated that this could be very controversial, and there should be a hearing followed. Mr. Strayer said they cannot tell the SENTINEL what to run. There is legislation before Village Council about increased notification. Ms. O'Keefe thought a lot of people would be very upset, but it is not something you can put out to the village for a vote. Mr. Wilkenfeld thinks Denison should go to the SENTINEL, but Mr. Chonko thinks the community does know about this, and there was an article about it a while ago. He wants to move ahead. Mr. Riffle said it's not fair to Denison to follow the process and then delay and give people time to object. We are following normal procedures and Denison is too. MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING DESIGN CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR AND FINISH PACKAGE AND SITE LIGHTING BY MARCH 26. MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR. BLANCHARD VOTED NAE). Finding of Fact: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR B UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND A,B, AND C UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN MR. STRAYER'S MEMO OF JANUARY 22. MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Work Session: Wendy Hollinger, North Pearl - Garage The garage is wobbly and needs to be replaced. It is close to the property line, and they need to look at their options: (1 ) Take the garage down and build a new one farther down the back yard; (2) make an addition onto the back of the house with garage; (3) build a carport out of the existing structure with parking in front; or (4) acquire some land from next door. It's too steep with a grade of 17° to build it on the other side of the house. Mr. Mitchell suggested checking with a surveyor to design something that will work grade-wise, and she said she would do that.Adjournment: 9:00 p.m.Next Meetings: February 12 and 26Respectfully submitted,Betty Hullinger
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSIONJanuary 8, 2007Minutes
Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Jackie O'Keefe, Tom Mitchell, Tim RiffleMembers Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld, Jack BurrissVisitors Present: Jessica Rettig, Walter Palasky, Michael Novak Minutes of December 18: Page 2, paragraph starting "Mr. Strayer" should be Mr. Riffle… Under the motion, No. B is True; No. D. is True . Last line under Rettig, should be Ms. Rettig. Page 3, Kevin Kittle's address is 224 E. College. MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.Citizens Comments: noneSwearing in of Witnesses:New Business: Jessica Rettig, 111 West College St. - Addition Mr. Strayer said the variance application for a 2-story garage was approved by BZBA. At our work session, members wanted to see a rear elevation drawing and more consistency with the house. The height of roofs should match. Ms. Rettig said the roofline of the main house is a 9/12 slope Her goal is to keep that slope to make the existing roof flow and look as if it were an extension of the house, built at the same time. Mr. Riffle disagreed and discussion ensued about the roofline, eave height, and whether a flat roof would be feasible. Mr. Riffle said with the roofline at 4 different points it lacks consistency. Ms. Rettig thought it was usual to have many rooflines and pitches in Granville's old houses. She preferred to table the application rather than receive a denial. MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 06-170. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND THE VOTE WAS 2 YESSES AND ONE NO (MR. RIFFLE), WHICH AMOUNTS TO NO VOTE, AS THREE VOTES ARE REQUIRED FOR A MAJORITY.
The applicant wishes to build a 48x24 carriage house as accessory use building, and Mr. Riffle asked for more details. Mr. Palasky said it will be white board and batten, with same roof style, a 24' cupola with gray prefab shingles. The windows are wood divided, and it has transom lighting. It will be used for cars and equipment. He showed a brochure with a small picture and said it will match more of the garage than the house. Mr. Blanchard asked what was the reason for placing it closer to the road, and Mr. Palasky said the front door faces Newark/Granville Road, so it's appropriate to place it in that quadrant. No other location seemed to fit. Mr. Blanchard asked about trees, and Mr. Palasky said none of the trees will be removed. The structure will have minimal foundation and will be put on concrete piers. Mr. Mitchell thought it was appropriate as long as it is not in the drip line or canopy of the trees and wanted him to come back with more details. MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION 06-171. MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Benjamin Burton, 224 East Broadway - Signage Mr. Strayer explained that they are asking for a free-standing sign and a sidewalk sign for the old Studio 37, replacing the sign already there. They were supposed to bring in the design, but they are absent tonight. Mr. Riffle can see what the free-standing sign will say, but he wants to see the sidewalk sign. MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION; MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Novak brought in new pictures of the sign, which will be 6'3" tall. They won't know what will be printed on the lower sign until they have a tenant. GPC was OK with leaving the bottom panel blank for now. There will be no ball at the top of the post.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 06-154 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) STYLE TO MATCH THE GRANVILLE LUMBER SIGN; (2) IT WILL HAVE BORDER AS SHOWN IN THE ADVANTAGE HEALTH SIGN; (3) TWO COLORS, GRAY AND WHITE. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Work Session: Michael Novak - Siding They are going to have to match siding where the old garage was removed and wanted approval to fill it in. There will be siding all the way down. Ms. O'Keefe asked about a brick façade, and Mr. Mitchell thought landscaping would be the answer. Mr. Strayer said if GPC wishes, he can approve their plans administratively, and GPC agreed with this idea.
Adjournment: 7:55 p.m.Next Meetings: January 22 and February 12 (We will have a meeting this Wednesday at 6 p.m. to discuss Amendments to the Ordinances.)Respectfully submitted,Betty Hullinger