Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 09/23/96

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 23, 1996
Minutes
Present: Maxine Montgomery, Lyn Robertson, Richard
Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury Members Absent: Keith Myers
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Phil Watts and Harold AThaxttotney ]a(nG*dranMvairllke MSwiellte) rm, aNneil SRuopbeerrAtsmone r i(Bcaa)p,tCishtarCleshurTc.h),WJoehsnt
Woolpert),Jeff Kobunsky, James Harf (120 Wildwood) , Frank Murphy 51 Wexford)
Minutes of August 5:
Page 1, delete comma after "base" 2 lines above New Business.
Page 3, No. 2, change name to Mary Lou VanAtta. Page 4, Line 3, add after SuperAmerica Way and lines up with
Proposed Bob Evans entrance. Page 5, last line in Paragraph 5#, change IARGER to 35 SO. FT. Paragraph #6, line 5, change
Commission to Village. Add to Line 8: MS. ROBERTSON brought up the point that it may not be an approved use for the zoning code. Mr. Salvage explained that GPC had received legal interpretation from Mr. Hurst that a gas station was a permitted use. GPC decided not to consider the "use" question because of this. Ms. Robertson
still had reservations about such a use. Page 4, The correct name is Street Lighting Committee. Please
change in second paragraph wherever it occurs. Page 6, Line, 9, change "the" to to after "Westgate Drive".
Page 7, Paragraph 3, Line 4. At the beginning of statement in
parentheses add "We discussed..." Page 7, add MR. SALVAGE asked whether any members had
gUestions about the site plan, since the Kissacks should know about them soon, and nobody stated an objection. Ms. Montgomery remarked
that apparently all the members find the site plan all right. Discussion tonight: Ms. Robertson wished that Mr. Salvage had given a definition of "site plan." Her interpretation of "site
plan differs from that of Mr. Salvage and she did not recall giving tacit approval to his question. Her objections at this point were: 1) the discussion was really a work session, (2) that it was 11: 30 at night and everyone was growing weary, (3) she thought this would be a BZBA decision and not discussed at length at GPC, 4( ) she did not want to go on record as approving the drive-through as part of the site plan; she would prefer to say, There were no specific
objections at that time, but this was a work session."} MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE AUGUST 5 MINUTES AS AMENDED;
MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
August 19 Minutes: Page 2, Line 5: The total is 10 acres; the split-off area is 3. 79 acres SRDA and 6. 25 acres PUD."Page 2, Line
9, after "future owners" change to Mr. Hickman said a 10' easement
1-s OK_ if the church retains the storm MR. STANSBURY sewer. MOVED TO APPROVE AUGUST 19 MINUTES AS AMENDED;
MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
September 9 Minutes: Page 1: Change the KIRK COMBE paragraph, last sentence to: Mr. Shulman added that Bob Evans said they were not required to come back to GPC and we had been surprised that they were doming back. Now they have changed their minds about
coming back. Mr. Salvage thought they had nothing new to be considered."
Page 2, Line 2, change r"estaurant" to "convenience center was denied by BZBA..."
Page 3, last line of Paragraph 2, "Someone said we don' t really want extra lanes. Paragraph 4, "A letter of record supporting approval of the Longaberger application has been received from MR. HECKELMAN,..."
Page 4, line 6, change work session" to old business.
Capitalize Citizens Comments. In the CYNTHIA CORT paragraph,
delete "negative, " in Line 3. In the JANE KING paragraph, Delete last sentence, add T"he proportions of each thing to everything else will not look out of place, he stated." Page 5, Paragraph 3, MARY LOU VAN ATTA. Under GPC
Discussion, Line 3, change "swirling" to curving gracefully. Paragraph 3, "Mr. Stansbury agrees with some 1 and 4) of these
dcoencciseironns. but still would be against approval. This is a tough He is reluctant to vote against an individual property wowhicnher. b _ut ,what we are preserving is an entrance to Granville, outweighs...."
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE SEPTEMBER 9 MINUTES AS AMENDED;
MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
New Business:
Jeff Kobunsky -
in TCOD
Lot 31 Thornwood Addition, West Broadway -Setback
Mr. Kobunsky has submitted a development application and plans for one of the houses in the Hersam property in the TCOD. Mr.
Reyazi had difficulty arranging a work session for this project, and Mr. Shulman did not want to take action until more details were forthcoming regarding the site. Mr. Kobunsky was expecting tonight to be a work session.
The ordinance calls for at least a 100' landscaped greenbelt from ROW, but GPC has discretion, confirmed by Mr. Hurst, to reduce this minimum; Mr. Kobunsky 'stated that if the house were moved farther back than 50',more trees would have to be removed; also, the steep terrain would make building difficult. Mr. Kobunsky Provided a plot plan showing the general footprint desired. He
2
4__-,
2 -71GrS »
showed a drawing of the similar terrain. same house which he built on New Burg on a Mr. Kobunsky received a letter (8/12/96) from the L.C. Health Department, and their requirements regarding septic tanks and leaching systems are pending. Mr. Salvage asked whether
Mr. Kobunsky would abandon the Gerbcut and the answer was Yes. Ms. Robertson wanted to remind people of the purpose of the
TCOD, which is to preserve the general way this area looks from the road. She wondered what it would look like when completed. Mr.
Kobunsky said the canopy would not be preserved but there would be
trees around, and not too many trees have to be cut down to gain
alocockess. Mr. Kobunsky would be willing to take a group out there to at the trees to be removed. The lot lines are established,
and the neighbor to the east is 35' away. MR. HARF stated that he was on GPC when they discussed this issue before; they did not want to budge from the 100' TCOD and did nlootts.want future homes to interfere with the canopy of the three
Ms. Robertson summarized that more information is needed
before action is taken: 1) specific drawing with dimensions 2)
diameter and location of all trees and which must be removed, (3) a sense of how it will look, (4) site plan, and (5) site visit. MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PENDING VISITS BY THE GPC AND VILLAGE STAFF. MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
First Baptist Church, 115 W. Broadway -Replace Slate Roof
Mr. Neil Robertson presented plans to replace the slate shingles from the roof and replace with asphalt shingles. He
cSohouwlded a sample of shingle, which is as near to slate color as they find. The slate on bell tower and spires will be kept. Slate is much too expensive to replace. MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. SALVAGE
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY. MS. ROBERTSON
ABSTAINED.
Anthony Barsotti, 344 East Maple -Vinyl Siding
The Barsottis need to cover the old wood siding with vinyl, and Ned Roberts thought the gray with silver coloring would fit best into the village historical code. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. STANSBURY
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Frank Murphy, Erinwood -Subdivision without Plat
Northtowne Properties requests splitting off a 1. 926-acre parcel from the 19. 157-acre parcel in the commercial subdivision.
Mr. Murphy said they need the lot split for Country Hearth. The
zoning will stay the same ds it is.
3
4
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. STANSBURY
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
6/T/6
SuperAmerica, Cherry Valley Road -Final plat applicatioJrfk* 4111 , 0 . Following Village Council' s tabling of t-hesapplication for more information, Mr. Thaxton explained that the plat has been breuvtiewed by engineers Bird &Bull. This is not a gas station plat, a site plan. He stated that the plat had been conditionally aSppurpoevreAdmebryicaGPCwthilrleegwievekes Ea( g€f> 6{seeacmreinsutetso ofth8e5/ G9/6raannvdill8e1/ 9La9/.nkd] Conservancy. Utilitieuslv,e-rts, easements, access road, and
Broairddw &idths are marked on the plat, as requested by Jerry Turner of Bull.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. STANSBURY
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Eloise DeZwarte -1921 Newark-Granville Road -Sign
Ms. DeZwarte is moving her business to the Erinwood area. She is not present tonight to answer questions, and Ms. Robertson wondered what would be in the blank top half of the sign. It is
apparently a 30"x38" brown wall sign with ivory lettering and border, but GPC does not know where it will go. GPC wants to
review what was told to other tenants about combined and identifi- bcuastiionnesss.igns there and how many are allowed per building and per
MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION UNTIL MORE INFORMATION
IS RECEIVED ON SIGN STANDARDS AT ERINWOOD COMMERCIAL. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Harold Attebury, Granville Milling Co., 400 South Main Development Plan Review/ FHOD permit
CSD
The property in question was rezoned to Community Service District in November, 1995, and now Mr. Attebury wishes to build two one-floor unlit buildings behind the Mill. Since the project is in the floodplain, the Flood Hazard Overlay District permit must also be obtained before construction can begin. 1) The 48x84
frame building is for dry fertilizer storage, and (2) the 601*20x16 steel building, similar to the NAPA building, is for various trucks and rolling stock. The existing building south of the bikepath will remain.
Mr. Shulman inquired about the aquiferw/atershed, and Mr. Attebury said the wells are upstream 12/ mile. Mr. Watts said the buildings would be raised 2' above the existing building floor. Mr. Reyazi will address comments by ODA, EPA, and Natural Resources to determine whether everything is in order, as well as whether the storage of fertilizer is a safe use {see Bird &Bull letter of 9/4/96}.Mr. Shulman also wants to review the concerns
5
of Village Council and GPC when rezoning was considered. Ms.
Montgomery said Village Council this had no problem with rezoning for purpose. Mr. Shulman was also concerned about pedestrians on rtheelocbaikteedp.ath, and Mr. Attebury showed him where the drive would be Mr. Reyazi read minutes from GPC meeting (9/19/95),
excerpted here:
Mr. Attebury said the fertilizer is the same substance in
place for twenty years. It is monitored by the EPA and the
Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Attebury said there would be over 200' between the Mill
and the neighbors and that there are trees as a buffer. They
are not planning to remove any trees. Ladd Michael
reported that the nearby residents met to talk about their
concerns: 1) Changing the zoning decreases the amount of
open space in the village; (2) noise from trucks and dryers
and dust pollution with the operation moved closer to houses;
3) filling in the wetland and floodplain is not a good idea;
4) with rezoning, anything can go in there in the future; (5)
the bikepath must be safe and protected from excess wear and
tear on the pavement; (6) The historic value of the village
needs to be protected; (7) The neighbors have been restoring
their property and wish their investment to be protected. Mr. Michael suggested alternatives, i. e.,behind the IGA or near the water treatment plant or enlarge the current building....
Excerpts from the October 2, 1995 minutes}:There was a community meeting, and Mr. Attebury is willing to add
screening and move the buildings. But some people are still not satisfied. Mr. Westall spoke for the neighbors, repeating
much of what was enumerated at the last meeting, adding (1) Additional large warehouses are not in Granville' s best interest; 2) more business means more truck traffic and
noise; (3) GPC should protect the neighbors because they have
protected neighbors in other areas from commercial expansion;
4) Granville needs a buffer between commercial and
residential areas; 5) the Mill should be responsible for
landscaping/ screening. Mr. Westall challenged the GPC to come
up with a reasonable compromise. He thought a complete plan is needed for the entire area, i.e.,South Pearl extension
A compromise was eventually forthcoming: Mr. Huey moved
that we recommend to Village Council that the OSD portion in yellow on the zoning map be changed to CSD. He moved also
that the SRD-B portion be unchanged. Mr. Salvage seconded,
AND THE MOTION PASSED BY 4 TO 1 (Mr. Myers)
MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO ACCEPT APPLICATION CONTINGENT UPON (1)
ISSUANCE OF THE VILLAGE' S FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT PERMIT AND (2) VERIFICATION OF APPROVAL OF STORAGE USES PERTAINING TO
FERTILIZER.
Mr. Shulman asked whether there were any other issues
discussed by Village Council or GPC at the time of rezoning, Mr. Salvage but thought the ground had been covered and rezoning approved. Mr. Shulman was reluctant to approve application without citizen input. The applicant was willing to wait until Village Council minutes are consulted. Mr. Reyazi agreed to review these
minutes with Mr. Hickman as soon as possible to see if there are any significant questions asked.
THE ABOVE MOTION WAS AMENDED BY CONTINGENCY (3),REVIEW OF VILLAGE PLANNER AND ASSISTANT VILLAGE PLANNER OF
VILLAGE COUNCIL MINUTES TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER
ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED HERE. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT
WAS UANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Stansbury asked about drainage, and Mr. Attebury said the
water drains off the hill into the Mill property, and as soon as the Village installs a storm sewer, the problem will be alleviated. The Mill people had the pond filled with dirt. Mr. Stansbury
wanted it noted that this situation will be resolved in time.
L. C. Historical Society, Alligator Mound -Sign
Alan Miller stated that the Historical Society wants to erect an oversized single-sided marker to help preserve the area and to educate people about the mound. The Homeowners' Association has
granted approval of such a sign. The sign will be like the one at the 'Robbins Hunter Museum, made of cast bronze or aluminum. It
will be 3. 5' x3. 5' and fastened to a post ca. 6' tall. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION, AND MR. STANSBURY SECONDED. IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 10: 20 p.m.
Next Meetings: October 7 and October 21.
absent on the 7th.
Mr. Stansbury will be
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
6

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 09/09/96

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 9, 1996
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Lyn Robertson, Richard
Salvage, Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury Members Absent: Keith Myers
Also Present: Reza Reydzi, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Carl Wilkenfeld (317
W. Elm),Mary Lee VanAtta, Ron &DeDe Cook (1137 C. V. Road),F. P.
Case (102 Shannon),A. C. Turner (113 Shannon),Steven Katz (221
E. Elm),Larry Nadwodney (217 Sunrise), Eloize DeZwarte (338 E.
College),Bill Wernet (134 S. Mulberry),Kirk Combe (133 Wicklow),
Charles 0-Keefe (4 Samson Place),Jane King (439 N. Gran- er),Cynthia &John Cort (1632 Newark-Granville Rd),J. Jimieson
Longaberger),Roger Kessler, Carmen MacLean (221 S. Pearl),
Carole Sue McCluskey (128 S. Cherry),Mark Zarbaugh (313 Spellman)
Minutes of August 5 and August 19: As Minutes for these meetings
were not distributed prior to the meeting tonight, approval
will be postponed until the. next meeting.
Citizens Comments:
MARY LOU VAN ATTA inquired as to why Minutes needed to be
approved, and the chair responded that sometimes notes were not
quite clear (or grammatical)- Ms. VanAtta thought the person
whose comments were being. reconsidered should be consulted, and
the chair agreed.
Upon being asked whether minutes should be recorded, Mr.
Reyazi said he would investigate this possibility.
KIRK COMBE asked why Bob Evans was not present tonight, and
Mr. Reyazi reported that he had received a FAX from them this
afternoon saying they plan to go back to Village Council instead
of the GPC. This will have to be a public hearing. JANE KING
asked why Bob Evans is ignoring the GPC, and Mr. Stansbury denied
that they were ignoring us. Mr. Shulman added that Bob Evans
»said they wg»lde-ome back here and work things out but they
54 1c/ /7(changed their minds; Mr. Salvage thought they had nothing new to 5123, 4 / ,r --- Citizens seemed uneasy about this matter, and Ms. Robertson
stated that she wrote a lengthy report on the denial and Mr.
Salvage wrote up his dissenting opinion and these are available
for anyone to read.
MARY LOU VAN ATTA· asked about zoning districts, and Ms.
Robertson explained the different zonings in that area and the
conditional use permits and variances required. in each.
1
2 6n
LARRY NADWODNEY wanted information on Fackler s, a, d members
explained that the drive-throuh E*n-=m-iJe-n*t- was deniedan/d .the
drive-through bank was approved.
JANE KING thought that if Village Council could overturn
GPC's decisions, one of those bodies was breaking the law, and
Ms. Robertson explained that it was a matter of interpretation.
Ms. King thought the ordinance should be tightened up, but Mr.
Shulman explained that people will always want variances. Mr.
Stansbury stated that some decisions were at the discretion of
the GPC.
CARL WILKENFELD added that people can· appeal Village Council decisions to the Court of Common Appeals. He added that the
Comprehensive Master Plan ·( CMP) said Cherry Valley Road (C. V.)
should be protected from commercial zoning, but now the whole.
street is zoned commercial, and how did that happen? Mr. Shulman
explained that rsidents on C. V. came in and asked for a rezoning,
and since the view was that eventually it would all be
commercial, the Village chose to change to commercial zoning on
C. V. at an open public meeting. Ms. Montgomery stated that
originally it was agricultural, but when it was annexed, the
Lodge, State Farm, and the church were built and some neighbors
felt they had to rezone in order to protect resale value of their homes. There are a lot of controls in the code.
DEDE COOK stated that they enjoyed being part of the township
on C. V. but after annexation they are part of the village,
even with the Newark address, but don' t feel as though they are
part of it. She also stated that with the added traffic on C. V.
it is difficult to get out of their driveway. They feel forced
into selling because of the increased activitY. Increased
business in Newark has d-Iso contributed to the traffic congestion
at the C. V. Rt. 16 intersection. She added that eliminating the
right-turn-on-red has slowed down traffic and added to stacking-
KIRK COMBE asked about traffic studies and felt that the
traffic at the intersection is appalling now. Ms. Robertson
responded that studies are being made but don' t necessarily agree. Mr. Salvage added that applicants do traffic studies, and
they are referred to our traffic engineers. It' s a major concern
for us. Mr. Shulman stated that SuperAmerica will undertake
extensive improvements to C. V, Road South and are responsible for
getting sewer service there. Mr. Combe has talked to engineers
and heard that "You can' t build your way out of a problem.
It' s nonsense, he said, to add onto an already existing problem. Mr. Shulman said that Marathon had a traffic study but BZBA
turned them down because their use was too traffic-intensive.
Mr. Reyazi reminded people that we have not accepted McDonald' s traffic study; we have asked a lot of hard questions of them.
Mr. Shulman said that Wendy' s, erhop-resents a leto-f-the nr1-31,- e-mT
was built before current regulations went in.
JANE KING asked whether any firm numbers of traffic exist,
and Mr. Reyazi stated that there are standards for a business
with such and such a seating capacity. The issue becomes localized
when examining where the traffic comes from. The numbers
are simple, he stated, and commercial traffic studies differ from
our own traffic studies. ELOISE DEZWARTE wanted firm numbers of
how many cars the intersection can handle, a reference to be used
for each applicant. But the problem, Mr. Reyazi stated, is that
if the first business takes. up all the cars recommended, the next
applicant cannot build. #Le don' t really want extra lanes.
4Ar<©»A6'*4«AL
KIRK COMBE stated that a person has the right to profit from
his property but not at tHe expense of other people. People on
C. V. -have been burdened and many felt forced into going commercial,
which encourages sprawl. BILL WERNET added that we make
choices about what we enable people to do with their land and still maintain a high quality of life without adding to traffic
problems. The best alternative is a sensitive development
generating low traffic.
CHARLES 0- KEEFE could sense a moral issue peeping through
the facts and arguments. We have heard statements about problems
generated by Wendy' s traffic engineersth-e- developers said there
would be no probmems, but that has not proven true. This suggests
that the instruments of analysis are not taking into
account the complex and unforseeable consequences of the actions
allowed to transpire.
A letter of recordt*
has been received hy MR. HEMPELMAgN, anpepirgohvbaol rof the application across the street.
Le- + R' bf'8-¢New BusineSss: «-FMK d\ £U-UZ*+4
Judy Gunther, 119 East Elm -sign
The proposed green awning sign was described· by Roger
Kessler as similar to the one at Hare Hollow. It will extend 36'
and will be 19' 8" long and will say -Gift Baskets by Hare Hollow."
It meets all requirements of the code. MR. STANSBURY
MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR, SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Public Hearing:
David Longaberger, 537 Jones Road
Village Council has remanded the matter of the gate and
driveway to GPC. They have reduced the gate by 2',which would
make the new gate structure 78- wide with a height of 15' at its
highest point. Before the hearing began, CARL WILKENFELD announced
that notification was not duly given; therefore, the
hearing is illegal. Mr. Reyazi agreed but stated that even
though changes were made, this is reallyold business, a continu-
3
ation, and not subject to notification in the library or outside
this building. But he feels he cannot pass judgment on this
decision and will seek the Law Director' s advice. If the changes
are substantial, this must be treated as a new application-
Members debated the next course of action and decided to treat
this as a Fnrk ses-s-i-en with public input. 64Ax4, 0 - i...
citizens Comments:
Mr. Jimieson from Longaberger wanted to expedite the process and agreed that Public comment would be acceptable tonight. He
stated that the gate design has been changed to a smaller scale wrouEht iron gate without arch, reducing the length of the brick
wall by 10 , taking out one pillar, and shortening the gate in
order to lessen the massiveness, according to the suggestions he
heard at the previous session. No changes were made in plans
for the roadway, tree lide, and guard house.
Mr- Salvage stated that only the gate and fence fall within
the Transportation Corridor Overlay District. Ms. Robertson
stated that within PUD we can consider the entire Plan.
CYNTHIA CORT, who lives across the street and whose property once was part of the Longaberger property, has done research on
the property and has come up with several no-gative reasons for
denying approval: 1) The roadcut will bring on a cumulative
effect on traffic congestion; (2) The historic vista of the front of the house should be preserved; when the trees grow, one will
not see the house; (3) They already have a perfectly good en- trance road with gate.
Mr. Jamieson understands the desire to protect historic
integrity but Mr. Longaberger' s vision it to make enhancements
and add a level of grandeur, which will also preserve the proper- ty.
JANE KING stated that the public was under the impression
that the polo field would remain as it is, and Mr. Jimieson
stated that the design will be in scale with the house. .The t>E€cvs---1*9L-- gh.eJti*,12Ilt5T;*ttt-'-'4*2-05:i 1J- okt LIL,Uff .
JonesCARRoMaEdN, MACLEAN asked why they' could not leave the drive on and Mr. Jimieson repeated that Mr. Longaberger wants
lt ln front to carry out his vision.
JOHN CORT,· who lives across the street, had concerns: (1)
The roadcut and traffic issues and (2) There are no other massive
gates in town, and some way needs to be found to make a transition
between the mansion and the other homes in the neighborhood·
The gate is a statement of distance rather than a complementary
aspect to the neighborhood. Mr. Jimieson stated that the guardhouse
will not be manned except on special occasions and that they are attempting a compromise.
4
r-
St
STEVE KATZ read a statement by CONSTANCE BARSKY offering
reasons why the application should be denied: 1) The CMP
decrees minimal roadcuts; ( signed 2) A significant number of voters the moratorium on growth; (3) The CMP cites the need to
Protect remaining vistas. Ms. Barsky recommended the GPC uphold
their original decision.
CARL WILKENFELD commended the GPC for their original decision
and their willingness to listen to. the public. His concerns
rest with the extra roadcut and the need to reinforce the CMP
regarding preserving and protecting historic landscapes and maintaining rural areas.
MARY LEE VAN 14T*R*thought that the traffic would not be difficult unless Mr. Longaberger is having a big gathering. The
fact that it is a mansion lends a certain amount of uniqueness
and leeway to the gate. · She did not think it will disturb the
look of the house. She thought a person should be able to do
what he wanted with his property.
ROGER KESSLER added that Mr. Longaberger is a good citizen and does things first class and we are fortunate to have him in
town and he has a right to take the separate parcel in front for
a front entrance.
GEC_ 21=21=aina
In answer to a question from Ms. Robertson, Mr. Jimieson
stated that Mr. Longaberger will not compromise with the Jones entrance .= wirling around the front of the mansion. He added that
Mr. Longaberger does not want to develop the front parcel,
whereas any other owner would be tempted to do so.
Mr- Salvage thought Granville was fortunate that finally
someone came along to restore the mansion. He also thought a 30-
acre parcel had the right to an access and that this is the most
likely way to preserve the openness. Mr. Salvage also thought
that: (1) Mr. Longaberger has improved the historic nature. <2>
He did not feel that the application falls within architectural
review. (3) The current driveway is an inappropriate entrance.
4) Since we always recommend tree-planting, we cannot very well
object to his doing so along the driveway.
SO PMS.(L f«1L I)
Mr. Stansbury agrees with4 *@- of+these concerrf but still would be against approval.C)This is a tough decision and fe-eres t-T! atre--*a-e*oueesr+eip»-i,A@cul-r-:b-n-und s by sincidrrd* o It an UWllCSlV--
vRinllen,ept*y.J but what we are preserving is an entrance to Gran- which *iw&e@ighs the applicant- s request. It' s not right
that Granville should lose its last open area. Mr. Longaberger
needs to look at the bigger picture; this is a perfect opportuni- ty to preserve something original.
Mr. Shulman has the same feelings and thinks we do have
authority to act. because of the TCOD. Regulations regarding the
5
fence speak directly to this. GPC turned down the current fence
because of its massiveness and got overturned. He would like to
maintain the view of the house. The trees lining up the drive
appear massive.
Mr. Stansbury suggested merely opening up the existing fence
would be a better idea. The height of the structure greatly
exceeds maximum regulations. The tree line definition leading to the house up leaves the gate a separate entity ftom the. house.
He would have to vote against it and suggested stages instead.
Division of the field is a separate issue from the gate.
Ms. Robertson is concerned about the charge to the GPC to
carry out with wishes of the CMP and preserve historic landscaps.
There are other places in town where we seriously consider
preserving historic integrity. To enhance the existing drive
would preserve the understated elegance of the property. In PUD
we do have the right to say what goes in there and she would not be able to vote for it. Originally we rejected the fence and
suggested putting it closer· to the house.
Mr. Jimieson' s sense from this meeting was that the gate was still. too massive. He said they might consider an opening in the
fence. Mr. Longaberger will not compromise on the central drive.
Mr. Salvage wanted the minutes to reflect that this application
is considered Old Business.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH MODIFICATIONS
AS PRESENTED TONIGHT BY THE APPLICANT. MR. SHULMAN SECONDVEODT,
ESA.ND THE VOTE WAS REJECTED BY 1 AYE (MR. SALVAGE) AND 3 NO
Announcements:
Erinwood s proposed subdivision has baen postponed until September 23.
Dow Chemical has suggested placing a memorial in Opera House
Park. A fountain would present maintenance problems, and other
suggestions are invited.
Adjournment: 9: 50 p. m.
Next Meetings: September 23 and October 7. be absent on the 7th.
Mr. Stansbury will
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
m
6

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 10/21/96

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 21, 1996
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Lyn Robertson, Richard
Salvage, Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury
Members Absent: Keith Myers
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),M. H. Banchefsky,
Franklin Bush, Bridget Kahle, James Schmidt (Concepts in
Lodging)M, ike Cuswell (Higgins &Assoc.M)a,ry Fellabaum, Nancy
Ross, Charles Cohen, Eloise DeZwarte, Mark Cassidy, Brenda Boyle,
Dean Markle, Darryl Payne, C. K. Barsky, Dan Bellman, Carl
Wilkenfeld
Minutes of October 7, 1996:
Page 1, Move the Ed Vance comment to Citizens Comments from
Ms. Robertson' s opening paragraph. Next paragraph delete "Ms.
Robertson reported that." To Citizens Comments, add Several
other citizens also addressed this issue.
Page 2, Line 14, add at this time this. . .
Page 5, Line 6 from bottom, change "oldest Country Hearth"
to "The Management company that will manage this has been there
since 1960."
Page 6. Under Part 6, "Ms. Robertson asserted that maybe we don' t need another hotel."
Page 6, Mr. Salvage asked whether more note could be added
to flesh out the discussion, and the secretary said she would add
what she had. (See revised notes.)
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE MINUTES; MR. SHULMAN SECONDED,
AND MINUTES WERE TABLED PENDING REVIEW OF REVISED MINUTES.
Citizens Comments:
Ms. Montgomery reported on four items from Village Council:
1) She requested Village Council for approval to tape GPC minutes,
and Mr. Plunkett said village staff was pursuing the issue of appropriate equipment not only for taping but also a P.A./ microphone system for all groups.
2) Regarding time limits on meetings, Mr. Hurst and Mr. Reyazi have talked and Mr. Reyazi is researching other communi- ties, Dublin, etc. Mr. Hurst will prepare a draft, including
other procedural matters, such as time limits for decisions.
Although GPC can initiate their own procedures, it would be helpful to have input from other communities.
3) Concern about how best to notify the community about meetings. A a notice in the Advocate would satisfy the legal requirement, but more people would read the Sentinel, which might not be printed 15 days in advance. She added that Granville
Village has a "home page" in the Internet, and when it is fully operational, notices may be placed there.
4) At the advice of Mr. Hurst, the Mayor has appointed an ad hoc committee to address the problems and issues in terms of
1
public hearings, adjudicatory hearings, including one member per
group. Rob Drake will represent V. C.
Ms. Robertson added that GPC also discussed placing "home"
applications first on the agenda. Mr. Hurst wondered whether Old
Business should come first. Ms. Robertson thought that uncomplicated
applications could come first. Mr. Salvage suggested
handling New Business before Country Hearth (CH) tonight.
Ms. Robertson read from a letter she received from an Erinwood
resident, William E. Wilson, who objected to undesirable
additions to the area. Residents were told that businesses would
be small shops and boutiques, and the writer urged GPC to deny
CH' s application.
Old Business:
John Compton, 341 East Broadway
At the last meeting, Mr. Compton was asked to provide drawing, which has a not yet been received. Mr. Shulman' s on-site
inspection learned that the excavation project will cut into the hill by about 5' and result in removal of two trees on the hill.
Mr. Compton responded that his intention is to remove dead trees and· replace with new ones. He added that he and his neighbor are discussing removing a dead tree between the houses. Drawings are still required.
Jeff Kobunsky, Lot 31 Thornwood Ad.,W. Broadway
Mr. Reyazi said that he has not heard from Mr. Kobunsky and it' s assumed drawings are not ready yet. Mr. Shulman added that
we need these materials before we can approve application. After
looking at the drawings, GPC members may want to visit the site. Application still on the table.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO PLACE NEW BUSINESS HERE ON THE AGENDA. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mark Cassidy, 332 E. College -Home Occupation Sign
Mr. Reyazi has received two letters regarding the appli- cation for an oversize wooden sign, one in support of the condi- tional use, one against the sign. Any approval needs to be tcioonndistiigonnsa,l upon BZBA approval. Members discussed home occupa- which are rare. Ms. Robertson would like this appli- cation to go to BZBA before GPC. Mr. Stansbury added that color samples were not submitted. Mr. Shulman said a sign should not exceed 2 sq. ft. and this one should only say "PepperBerry Cottage" because it is for identification, not pass-by clients. Mr. Cassidy said the color will match the cream on the house with
b,
2
3
red letters.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED PENDING
RECEIPT OF AN EXACT DRAWING WHICH DOES NOT EXCEED THE 2
SQ. FT. MAXIMUM. MR. SHULMAN SECONDED AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Nancy Ross, IGA, 484 S. Main Street -Banner
Ms. Ross is requesting a 15 sq. ft. vinyl promotional banner
at entrance to the IGA for a two-week period. Since it is temporary
and others have received permission for banners, there is
precedent.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE A TWO-WEEK BANNER NOVEMBER 24-
DECEMBER 7. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Ms. Robertson wants banner removed promptly after the event.
Joe Hickman, 326 N. Granger
Mr. Hickman is requesting removal of three windows on south
side and replacing with one similar window. He wants to replace
dining room with a bathroom. Later he will replace the front
door. He will replace siding with brown shake, and shutters will
go back on.
MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE REMOVAL OF 3 WINDOWS; MR.
SALVAGE SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Hickman will bring in the application for door removal later date. at a
Old Business Continued
Country Hearth (CH) Inn, South Galway
The public hearing has been closed, and tonight GPC will discuss remaining items and ask applicant questions. Mr. Hurst
hcaissiosna.id GPC has 15 days from October 7 (tonight) to make a de- Mr. Reyazi received a response from Bird &Bull
101/ 89/6) about site plan drawings. He has not yet spoken with wODiOthT about storm water runoff, but our engineer has been in touch engineer from CH. ODOT will approve plan with modifications
but the permit has not been issued yet.
said Mr. Stansbury questioned the lighting plan and Mr. Schmidt lightsth.ey agreed at last meeting to remove dormer fluorescent They are total cutoff lights; they' ve done everything possible to adhere to the code.
Ms. Robertson referred to the Bird &Bull letter, Item 1, STORM water. Mr. Reyazi said detention will be revised to meet village standards. Detention will be in the parking lot. Items 2 and 3, Mr. Reyazi stated that in case a private drive becomes public, it would have to comply with village standards, i. e.,detention, concrete thickness, and pipe size;
construction standards do not necessarily apply with a private
drive. The difference in concrete thickness is about 1",and Mr.
Schmidt said they gould comply with the village standards.
W6+47 /r D-*
Mr. Schmidt stated that they have no intention to make this
a public road. Item 1 will be taken care of at ODOT approval.
Items 2 and 3 are non issues. Access road will make curb and
storm drainage to public standards.
Mr. Shulman that the engineer planted this concern in his
mind and it got him to thinking. He would rather see this constructed
under village standards because in the future a new
business might be interested in the road being public.
Mr. Salvage thinks the approval could be subject to the
engineer' s approving storm water plans. Mr. Shulman wanted to
state that approval should be to public road standards because of
the possibility of its being public in the future. Mr. Reyazi
added that Mr. Zarbaugh (and Village Council) preferred roads
being built to public standards rather than changing them later.
Mr. Banchevsky stated that if GPC wants a public street, the
village should pay for building it. Mr. Schmidt stated that in
regard to public street standards on storm water runoff, applicant
will comply with public standards. Other issues are
different and are not part of this letter {Bird &Bull}.Mr. Reyazi said that Mr. Turner has nots *t made a recommendation
regarding concrete depth.
Ms. Robertson asked about Items 5 and 6. Mr. Reyazi stated
that grading refers to sites surrounding CH. Mr. Turner needs to approve.
Mr. Banchevsky stated that he has no problem making this contingent upon approval of village engineer. Mr. Shulman
indicated that we can go beyond and say what we would want in
case it becomes a public road.
Mr. Shulman asked for more information regarding card-key entrance into building. He suggested limiting access by main
door only and having the doors at the ends fire exits only. Mr.
Schmidt said entrance is for guests' convenience, and exits are visible to central desk clePk, and he would like to talk with the police to hear their comments. CH will work with any authorities to ensure safety for their guests. He added that they never called themselves "bed and breakfast, "although some citizens have used that phrase. Ms. Robertson stated that even with a key-card access, non-guests can be let in.
Mr. Shulman asked whether pathway easements could be made to adjoining lots. Mr. Schmidt stated that they would cooperate but there are issues related to greenspace requirements. A paved bvaikreiapnacthe. could force a shortage and they might have to have a requires But they can eliminate some landscaping if the village a paved pathway.
Mr. Shulman stated that he received a packet from village citizens, including a petition with about 50 signatures regarding the traffic situation and asked whether GPC members received it.
4
5
Ms. Montgomery felt that as the public hearing is closed we
should not accept new input. Ms.
information could be considered;
mation has to be set aside.
Robertson said that any new
Mr. Salvage thought new infor-
Mr. Shulman asked whether we have a final figure on lot
coverage, and Mr. Reyazi answered that not having the digitized
plan, it' s hard to work up the information CH has, but it appears
to be under 65 per cent coverage. We can ask their engineer to
provide our engineer with a copy of the permeability plan and do
a calculation. It could be made part of the engineer' s approval.
Ms. Robertson asked whether the power company could tear
down screening on easements and wondered whether it was really a
good plan to allow landscaping in the easement, but there is no
other place to put it. Mr. Schmnidt said the electric company
must replace and repair any damages they incur. It' s common for
easement areas to be landscaped. Mr. Reyazi does not think
easements can be excluded as greenspace. Ms. Robertson asked
whether anything can be built on a utility easement, and Mr.
Reyazi said it could, but the utility company cannot be ible for repairing respons- anything put on top of their easement.
Ms. Robertson stated that although BZBA approved the application,
we are charged with ensuring that traffic is not a
problem. The traffic was studied on Galway rather than at Rt.
16/C. V. She imagined there would be a problem with left-turning traffic. Mr. Schmidt referred to the June 11 letter to Doug
Tailford, which states that CH would add about 20 cars, which
would minimally impact C.V.R/t. 16 and concluded that no site improvements are needed. Ms. Robertson thought that there might still be stacking problems. Also, study was done in May, a time
when college students are gone. She is skeptical of the traffic study. She thought. the actual peak hours would be different
from those in the study.
Mr. Reyazi stated that CH would add to traffic flow onto Galway and C.V.,but it would be more spread out and not affect the big intersection very much. Mr. Schmidt added that any other use of the site would generate more traffic.
Ms. Robertson asked whether the size of the sign was nego- tiable, and Mr. Schmidt said that in April they discussed appear- ance and sign. He was given instructions to have the sign smaller than Wendy' s, which, he thinks, is 100 sq. ft. They have submitted a 36 sq. ft. sign and a question should have arisen sooner if this is a problem. Even though most of their customers are local, a 4x8 sign is not unreasonable so they can attract some pass-by traffic. Ms. Robertson did not think anything was approved. She said that CH is coming to a community different tfrhoemswtahnadtairtd.was last spring and Wendy' s should not be used as
Mr. Stansbury asked what CH is saying to neighbors who do
not want them to build there. Mr. Schmidt said that once they
get to know us, they will like us. They will be very good
citizens of the community. If the question had arisen sooner,
they might have addressed it. CH is a modern hotel designed to
fit in with the architecture and with security in mind. Room
rates are high enough to attract better clientele. There are
about 30 other CH hotels, some of which are in residential areas;
the majority are in major intersections near small towns. Ms.
Robertson asked whether they would be willing to hold a public
forum, and Mr. Schmidt would, although he did not think it was
necessary as part of the site plan approval process. Ms.
Robertson thought it would be appropriate because there are a lot
of people who are not sure they want CH here. Mr. Schmidt said
they would have been willing in the first three months of this
process if questions had arisen, but thought it might be possible
after the process is over.
Mr. Stansbury said that CH has met all conditions traffic will not be impacted severely. he feels badly that so
many people are against the application. He sympathizes with
them but sees nothing in the code which would preclude approval
except the size of the sign. The lighting of the sign may still be an issue. Mr. Reyazi said CH will have to meet the lighting
fixture and intensity guidelines and should be a condition of
approval.
MR. 5* 5Bl#ieY MOVED THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS
SUBMITTED WITH (1) TOTAL SIGNAGE OF 36 SQ. FT.,A 32' HIGH 2-
SIGN BACK OF THE DUMPSTER AND A 4' DIRECTION SIGN ALONG
GALWAY; (2) THAT THE APPLICANT SATISFY ALL LIGHTING AND 1-
CONDITIONS PLACED ON IT BY THE VILLAGE ENGINEER IN REGARD TO
SINTFOORMRMWAATTIOENR AND EASEMENTS ; 3() PRESENTATION OF LOT COVERAGE 3 TO ENGINEER. 4) RECOMMENDATIONS FROM TREE AND d
ALALONNDGSCWAPEESTCOMMITTEE ARE TO BE MET, AND ADD MORE PLANTINGS / SIDE OF PROPERTY.
Mr. Shulman added that: (1) future bonnections have bike 3 wpaetsht aancdceessa.s t (a2c)ceHsesessugbgeesetsxifot-romnally' .c o(3n)siHdeerwa6tiuolnd gliikveenthtoe making roadwMayr. toSablveagbeuidltidtonovt iltlhaignek and village staff recommendations.1 (-) nor to impose we can tell them what doors to use more stringent road standards. These items should ' be suggestions only. Mr. Shulman wanted this worded as formal consideration.
MR.
MR.
MR. SALVAGE AMENDS THE ABOVE MOTION TO EXCLUDE ACCESSES AND ADHERING TO VILLAGE STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC ROADS BUT ADD PEDESTRIAN BIKE ACCESS AS NEEDED IN THE FUTURE.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
SHULMAN MOVED TO INCLUDE HIS THREE ADDITIONAL ITEMS IN S_TANS@WRY-' S MOTION. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED.
UU-C 420,
6
Mr. Shulman indicated he would vote in favor and wanted to
express appreciation to citizens for their work. It is the BZBA
who considers the use issue. He respected CH for going through
work sessions and hearings and listening to our views and making
modifications. He wishes the sign could be smaller and did not
think any sign should be more than 24 sq. ft. Actually, he noted
that small specialty shops might be more detrimental because of
more parking, etc. The most detrimental aspect concerns the
neighbors.
Ms. Robertson will abstain, mainly because she cannot vote
for something in good conscience where people have not been
allowed full input.
Mr. Stansbury added that Mr. Myers had brought up a suggestion
about 9' parking spaces instead of 10'. Mr. Schmidt said
the reason for 10' spaces is that guests say the doors bang the
next car at 9'.
Mr. Stansbury asked what would they do if the lot coverage
exceeded 65 per cent, and Mr. Schmidt said they would decrease
the permeability beginning with reducing the parking spaces.
Mr. Stansbury thinks Mr. Shulman is on target. Part of his
reason for voting for the motion is in looking through conditional
uses, other businesses would generate more traffic. He
appreciates the neighbors' position.
Mr. Schmidt had closing comments. They are going to formally
consider eliminating entrance to the east and west exits.
They will analyze this internally and also sit down with the
village forces regarding safety. Regarding the road, they are willing to analyze building it to physical dedication standards.
If they have to do this, they think the village should help. They will report back to Mr. Reyazi.
Mr. Salvage suggested recommending to Village Council it be that a public road, but Mr. Shulman disagreed. Mr. Schmidt
proposed a meeting with Mr. Turner on subject of the road. Mr.
Shulman wanted to add other appropriate people.
Mr. Reyazi thought this would take at least three weeks. It
was agreed that resolving this issue will be done within 30 days
between Mr. Reyazi ahd applicant.
A VOICE VOTE WAS TAKEN, RESULTING IN 3 YES (SALVAGE, STANSBURY, SHULMAN) 1 ABSTENTION (ROBERTSON).
Adjournment: 10: 50 p. m.
Next Meetings: -November 4 and November 18
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
7

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 10/07/96

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 7, 1996
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson,
Richard Salvage, Marc Shulman
Members Absent: Gary Stansbury
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors Present:
on attached sheets.
Scott Rawden (Sentinel),
Minutes of September 23, 1996:
and about 31 names as
Page 1, correct Harold Attebery' s spelling in Visitors
section.
Page 3, Line 5, change "curbcut" to existing driveway beyond
the proposed home.
Page 4, Line 1 under SuperAmerica, change "this" to the site
development plan.
MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES; MR. STANSBURY
SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ms. Robertson has rdceived a request to tape record our minutes.
She assured the caller that we have been thinking about
this, and it was agreed that Ms. Montgomery will present the
request to Village Council.
Ms. Montgomery suggested putting a time limit on our agenda
at meetings so that after a certain time we will not be considering
new applications. She did not think we could alter plans
for tonight' s session but she presented the idea for future
meetings. Mr. Salvage thought we had an obligation to hear applications
in a timely fashion and wanted guidance from Village
Council. Mr. Myers would rather schedule a special meeting when the agenda is heavy.
Citizens Comments:
Ed Vance suggested that meetings would be improved with
microphones and P. A. system in addition to tape recordings.
Carl Wilkenfeld was concerned about inadequacy before public of publicity hearings or particularly important meetings. He
stated that a number of interested citizens did not learn about tonight' s session until this afternoon. Several other citizens
spoke to this issue (Paul Stone, Ed Vance)C.onstance Barsky said it was in the Advocate, but a lot of Granville people do not see the Advocate. Mr. Reyazi said that staff will be more diligent in the future, while at the same time considering the expense to the applicant for multiple notices. Ms. Montgomery will present this concern to Village Council.
Old Business:
Jeff Kobunsky, Lot 31 Thornwood Ad.,W. Broadway -TCOD Setback -
Mr. Kobunsky met with Mr. Shulman and Mr. Reyazi on site to
consider the best setback for the proposed house. In TCOD, 100'
is the minimum setback. The artist' s rendering is not prepared
yet. Mr. Winters, next door, has concerns about the steepness of
the driveway with a 100' setback and a lack of privacy with the
house so far back. The Winters house is set back 50'. Several
times cars have slipped down towards his house, so he would
rather see a 50' setback and a less steep driveway.
Mr. Shulman stated that fewer trees would have to be cut
down at 100' setback and feels that the driveway steepness would
not be a problem. The TCOD wishes to preserve trees, for this
benefits the entire community. The house would be less visible
at 100'.
Ms. Robertson suggested a different approach; Mr. Randall
Arendt at the Planning Conference suggested clustering homes, but
Mr. Kobunsky stated that at this time that would not work with
the sewer situation. Mr. Reyazi said we need to specify the
setback before the zoning permit can be issued. Mr. Salvage
suggested that Mr. Winters and Mr. Kobunsky consult together to
work out a compromise and return to GPC at a later date, and Mr.
Kobunsky agreed to this.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION UNTIL APPLICANT
BRINGS BACK A DRAWING SHOWING TREES TO BE CUT, LOCATION OF
PROPOSED HOUSE, AND MR. WINTERS' HOUSE.
Mr. Myers stated that GPC has forced other applicants to adhere to setbacks in TCOD. Mr. Reyazi suggested that steps can be
taken to ensure that cars do not slip into Mr..Winters' yard.
Perhaps the house could be moved farther west. Ms. Robertson
added that color of the house is important also. Mr. Shulman
wants to be sure the Tree and Landscape Committee is involved.
MR. SHULMAN SECONDED THE MOTION, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Eloise DeZwarte, 1921 Newark-Granville Road -Sign
Ms. DeZwarte is subletting the Nationwide to substitute her sign property and wants color. for theirs in the same size and same The top half of the sign will be used by new tenants. The proposal is consistent with other signs at that location. MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Public Hearing
James Schmidt, Country Hearth Inn, South Galway -Site Plan
Ms. Robertson reviewed the format for the public hearing on site development plans, which is different from the use issue.
2
Part 1, Introduction by Staff. Mr. Reyazi clarified the
fact that we are considering the site development plan, not the
use issue. Given that the use was approved by BZBA, we need to
consider the plan to best serve that use. Changes recommended
at the work sessions have been addressed. Lot coverage remains
an issue at a questionable 65 per cent, as well as the 32' sign
8' sign is permitted),which would require variance. The Tree
and Landscape Committee has requested adjustments to the landscaping
plans and Country Hearth has agreed to accommodate them.
Country Hearth has addressed all concerns in previous meetings.
Some engineering issues are still to be resolved but are not
difficult to resolve; Jerry Turner' s approval is required.
Setbacks and parking are within regulations. The lightihg plan
meets with guidelines, but they conflict in terms of fixtures
Granville is considering, so they may need to work for more
compatible lighting fixtures. The guidelines clear. are not really very
Part 2, Applicant' s Presentation. Mr· Schmidt introduced
Mr. Anderson, Mr. Roberts (Jobes Henderson), Mr. Kuhlman, Mr.
Rafeld (Landscape Designer),Mr. Banchefsky (attorney) and Mr. Segna. He stated that changes recommended in first work session
have been addressed:
A. Provided easement for ingress and egress
B. 5' sidewalks from Galway to Country Hearth
C. Dumpster enclosed and materials match building
D. Landscaping between parking lot and Rt. 16 to screen parking area
E. Pitch of roof line
F. Addition of windows to east end
Changes recommended in second work session:
A. Received variance from BZBA for roof height
B. Moved building slightly to the east
C. Moved dumpster from NW corner to SE corner to incorporate it with ground sign
D. Samples of siding and brick were shown
E. Signage: Two requested: (a) 4' x8' facing Rt. 16, lit on one side and (b) entrance sign at Galway.
Mr. Roberts showed site plan and stated all changes have been incorporated and engineering concerns have been met. A. Main entrance is on the north. Access is from interior
hallways.
necesBs.arTyh. ey added a pedestrian path to Wendy' s with steps where
C. There is a single entrance off Galway with private driveway to Country Hearth. Access to any future neighbors will be provided.
acceDs.sT)h. ere are 59 parking spaces (three for handicapped
h
3
1
r.
E. They will utilize the public water line, and sewer is a
tap into existing system behind Wendy' s. Piped storm water will
go into the right of way of Rt. 16. ODOT said it was adequate.
Storm water detention will be at the parking lot. Storm water
was originally to go down Rt. 16 and they removed it so that
Granville will not handle it at all. Jerry Turner agrees with
this.
F. They determined by computer analysis that lot coverage is
61. 5 per cent.
G. Landscape will surround the building. They are not
asking for any variances and all issues brought up have been
addressed.
Mr. Rafeld, landscape architect, stated that they responded
to GPC concerns, i. e.,screening the parking lot and minimizing
impact of the building. There< exists vegetation providing
screening from highway. They will add low evergreen shrubs 6'- 8'
tall, which will grow together and provide a significant screening
wall. To soften building, deciduous trees will be placed
around the building, but they left some holes so the building is
not completely obscured. There are trees on either side of
dumpster, and planting will be done at the base of the sign. The
only view of Country Hearth will be coming west at Wendy' s. The
lighting plan will conform with Granville' s standards. Lighting
must reveal the building and also provide security.
Part 3, Public Comment.
MR. WILKENFELD objected that: A. Notices of the hearing
were not imparted to neighbors in view of the motel, and he never
saw notices in the Sentinel. B. It' s ·important that GPC learn of
citizen feelings about the project, which is a nuisance and a
hazard and it depends on high pass-by traffic. There will be
noise from busses bringing clients late at night, students
partying, drug dealers, prostitution, fighting over parking
spaces, shootings and stabbings, police with sirens. He urged
GPC to consider the real-life issues of bringing in this project.
KIRK COMBE added that it' s disturbing that Country Hearth is
not starting out as a good neighbor because when neighbors
brought up concerns, Country Hearth brought in legal power. He
had several concerns: A. Hazard and nuisance of drugs. B. A motel is not a neighboring Murphy Group. shop or boutique as advertised by the C. As long as Country Hearth advertises as a "bed and breakfast type motel,i"t should not be necessary to advertise at the highway.
ED VANCE asked why this issue is brought back at this time. toThietr.e was a protest about the conditional use and what happened Mr. Reyazi responded that there are two separate issues: 1) Appeal of the conditional use granted by BZBA and (2) Appeal was dropped by Village Council. They refused to take it up and
4
dismissed it. We are talking about the use of the site as a
motel, since BZBA approved it, then it' s fair game for GPC to
consider development plan based on that approval. Mr. Vance
wondered how it could have been dropped, and Ms. Robertson said
we needed to refer to the Law Director. Nobody lives within 200'
of the project and is therefore not eligible to appeal.
RON WINTERS is not sure we need more motels. Conditional
uses will change the character of Granville rapidly.
CLIFTON CRAIS read a letter from Phelps Jones, resident of
Village Green, speaking as a private citizen. He has conducted
inquiries into drugs, and he finds that a motel attracts criminal
types, such as drug dealers who use motels as storage and
processing places. Highway motels provide easy access to dealers
and swift getaways when police come near. Hazardous waste is
produced. Mr. Crais added comments of his own, asking what would
be the impact on local overnight businesses, and how much money would be generated from this business? He also asked what Would
be the affect of declining property values on the village. He
wondered how Country Hearth can ensure it will not attract the
wrong type of people.
JEFF DUNCAN thought it was interesting that whenever he
stopped in a motel in California there were families living
there. Does Country Hearth have economical, monthly rates and do
they have ways to control families from moving in? Does Country
Hearth plan to have food and alcohol?
CONSTANCE BARSKY asked questions about the harmonious nature
of the business with the neighborhood. What about occupancy
rates and length of average stay. How do they safeguard the
neighborhood? She worried about the traffic congestion. A big
sign on the highway should not be granted for a bed and breakfast
type operation. She asked about the planned obsolescence and the
length of time needed for trees to grow to 40' tall.
CARL WILKENFELD asked what is covered by 65 per cent lot coverage, and Mr. Reyazi stated it is what is permeable. Mr.
Wilkenfeld wishes Mr. Reyazi would recalculate this.
ED VANCE thought GPC should not be considering lot as great as 65 per cent and added that coverage a motel is not the right type of development for that site.
JIM JUMP asked when the clock starts for the required 45-day decision, and Mr. Reyazi said the date when all completed materials are submitted to him is when the clock starts. GPC has
15 days after conclusion of hearing to present Finding of Fact. Using September 10 as the date all materials were completed, the decision would be required around October 18.
5
1
Part 4, Commission Questions.
Mr. Myers stated that Mr. Reyazi noted two items where the
applicant failed to meet code: lot coverage and signage.
A. As far as parking on the west side, he asked whether it
would be possible for additional landscaping along Rt. 16. Mr.
Schmidt agreed to this suggestion.
B. Regarding a lighting plan, we do not have a foot-candle
lighting plan. Mr. Reyazi stated he has it and that our lighting
plans require that the lighting engineer must say that the plan
meets with our guidelines. Mr. Schmidt said that this issue
came up and they hired a lighting consultant who got all
information available and added that up with foot candles and
said it meets Granville standards.
C. Mr. Myers asked about fluorescent strip lighting and Mr.
Schmidt said it' s in the dormers providing soft interior lighting
of the dormer. Mr. Myers thought the lights did not really serve
any purpose; they appear to be advertising rather than safety
lighting. He added that GPC made Bob Evans remove extra
lighting. Mr. Schmidt said the lights are aesthetic; they would
like to keep them but would be willing for give them up.
D. Regarding lot coverage, Mr. Myers asked whether they need
10' parking spaces. At 9' they, could considerably reduce the blacktop area.
E. He asked whether our engineer has approved the storm
water into the ditch, and the answer is "Not yet, "but if there
is a problem, water could utilize existing storm system.
Mr. Shulman had questions:
A. To his question about roof structures, the answer was there are none.
B. He asked about useable life of the building, and the
answer was 40-60 years, depending on the area. The management
company that will manage this has been in operation since 1960.
C. How long do trees take to grow? The answer was for a
40-foot tree, it would take about 10-15 years.
D. He asked about additional lighting and whether fixtures
are total cut-off, they and it is Mr. Schmidt' s understanding that are.
E. Final approval is needed from ODOT and the village engineer.
Ms. Robertson had some concerns:
A. How much area is behind Country Hearth, and Mr. Schmidt
bsauidilt there is about a 5-acre site and an office complex might be there.
B. Regarding pedestrian access to bikepath, Mr. Schmidt said there is a 5' sidewalk and the driveway is 30' wide. A walkway with steps goes to Wendy' s. Country Hearth has entrances on all four sides, with electronic keys.)
C. She asked whether Country Hearth would consider an 8 sq. ft. sign, and the answer is they were asked to keep it the
6
same size as Wendy' s. To be readable, 4' x8' is about as small as
Possible. from the higHhewaadyd. ed that it is not designed to bring people in
D. Ms. Robertson asked whether they have any data on volume of traffic. Mr. Schmidt stated they commissioned a traffic study and the village consultant agreed the study overstated the traffic expected. This was discussed in detail at BZBA.
E. Regarding air conditioners, Mr. Schmidt said every room has an A. C.,and they are very quiet. F. She asked whether there were any other decorative lights,
aanndd Matr. aSllchmidt, said there would be paired wall sconces at ends entries. There would be soffit lighting at main
entry, shining down on the sidewalk.
Part 5, Final Comments by Applicant. Mr. Banchefsky,
attorney, thanked the group for considering the site plan. He stated that applicant has done everything in its power to adhere to the code, and if citizens are unhappy with the code, they can change it. He was concerned about process; after two work ses- tsoionassk, fthoer. only real issue is size of sign and that is not much If there are concerns about nuisance, there are Provisions under local and state law to address them as they
loecmcsu.r. Granville has sufficient police manpower to handle prob- The structure is good looking with sensitivity and we ask GPC for approval within 45 days.
Part 6, GPC Discussion and Vote. The application needs either to be continued or voted upon. Ms. Robertson asserted
that maybe we don' t need another hotel. We should look at an economic impact statement. Mr. Myers stated we are bound by the conditional use regardless of whatever was represented to buyers in the subdivision. GPC has to consider the land zoned SBD and the codet-h-at' s what we have to work with. A lot of issues
raised tonight are pertinent with the Comprehensive Master Plan 12C*SI·pSYS 182 ISGSS *cRNSS ZStnaolte*toosass KS-Sv:eT issue has been taken out of our decision-making process. Coumse- munity concern is important and people are revising the CMP and ultimately the zoning code. Ms. Robertson said that some vague language allows us to ask more questions. She has trouble voting
oSnhuslmoamnething which the people have not had their full say. Mr. suggested waiting 15 days for a full membership. A delay would allow more citizen comments.
Mr. Salvage ·thought that since they meet all standards
eSxhcuelmpatnthe sign size, the application should be approved. Mr. does not argue that but prefers waiting 15 days. He said
that Village Council postpones things, but Ms. Montgomery said in two of those cases the applicant asked for postponement. Mr. Reyazi reminded the group that any approval must be conditional upon engineer' s acceptance.
Mr. Salvage was certain that in the work sessions we did not
f.
7
indicate a problem with signage. Ms. Robertson said that
public comment was blocked at BZBA. Mr. Banchevsky said he
objects. Mr. Wilkenfeld' s appeal was not blocked by Country
Hearth. Ms. Robertson thinks it' s important that the community
have its voice; it' s not going to happen here because we are
limited to site plan. Ms. Robertson will abstain.
Mr. Banchevsky said that there was no objection at the first
or second sessions; they adhered to the law and nobody objected
at the other sessions until Carl Wilkenfeld filed his appeal. Mr.
Banchevsky added that the Law Director said Village Council
should not hear the appeal, and they are doing what the Law
Director said should happen. Mr. Wilkenfeld added that the
applicant filed against the village in a court of law when they
heard about the appeal. They do not want to hear citizens'
comments. Ms. Robertson said it is not unreasonable to ask for
more time and wants more time to consider the purpose of the
code, which is to preserve harmonious aspects of the town,
health, safety, general welfare, etc.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MR. MYERS
SECONDED THE MOTION. MAJORITY APPROVED MOTION WITH 3 AYES.
MR. SALVAGE THEN MOVED TO VOTE TONIGHT.
Mr. Myers prefers to defer voting until the 15 days are up.
Based on public comment, there might not have been sufficient
public notice given. The attorney thought it unfair to get
additional public comment, and Mr. Myers stated in that case we
will not accept public comment.
MR. MYERS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION. MR. SHULMAN SECONDED.
MOTION TO TABLE WAS WITHDRAWN.
New Business:
Russ Adams, 111 N. Prospect -AROD Application
Mr. Adams stated that they have a single-paned glass window
in a 150-year-old house and they want two side by side double
glazed windows with small divider panes.
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. SALVAGE SECONDED
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Police Department, 141 East Broadway -Sign
Mr. Reyazi explained that a new lighted identification sign
is needed to replace the one destroyed by wind over the entrance.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. MYERS
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Nancy Ross, IGA -Sandwich Board
Ms. Ross stated that they are requesting a sandwich board so
they can have extra advertising and promotion. It will be on the
walkway outside the building.
8
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE; MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Jules and Rochelle Steinberg, 425 E. College -Fence
Kristen Pape explained that the Steinbergs fence with request screen lattice, 6, high on south side, 4' high on west side. They will leave existing trees, and Ms. Pape provided a landscaping plan.
MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE; MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
James Young, 223 N. Granger -AROD Application
Mr. Young wishes to remove interior chimney and replace with
red brick exterior chimney. It will be 12' from property line
and will match style of chimney next door. They will need to remove an attic window.
APPLICATION WAS GRANTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
James Hudgens, 124 W. Maple -AROD and air conditioner
Changes to driveway from gravel to cement have been made,
and GPC has no objection to driveway. The Hudgenses also wish to add an unscreened A.C. on side of house, but Mr. Reyazi has not received acceptance from neighbor. He will call her and then
make his decision on A. C.
MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE DRIVEWAY; MR. MYERS SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
John Compton -341 East Broadway -AROD Application
Mr. Compton wishes to renovate the 100-year-old house and is
asking tonight for siding and windows. The wood siding is not
salvageable and he wants to add almond colored new wood veneer faced cove lap siding atop the old. They don' t want to change
any of the gingerbread. He is also requesting permission to
excavate on shared driveway in order to level the lot for a
turnaround and garage at a later time. There was a garage there
once. Mr. Reyazi noted that there is no other parking for the property.
There are two doors on the house; they want to remove one and insert a vinyl coated all wood double-hung window. No drawing was provided for the project. MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO VILLAGE
PLANNER' S APPROVAL OF DRAWING. MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Announcements:
Mr. Myers suggested amending the by-laws to decide on a time
after which we hear no new cases. Mr. Salvage added the
9
possibility of hearing Myers New Business before a public hearing. Mr. stated that a problem presents itself when there are a large number of applications to be considered in a meeting. Mr. Salvage Suggested limiting public comments to 2-3 minutes. MS. Robertson prefers to let the people have their full say. Mr. Reyazi thought maybe we could change our procedure to wait 30 days to make a Finding of Fact. Mr. Hurst can draw up something for us to consider. This will allow 30 days after a hearing to make a decision and another 30 days to get a Finding of Fact to Village Council. Mr. Robertson thought this would give GPC more time to think about an application.
Adjournment: 10: 50 p. m.
Next Meetings: -October 21 &November 4.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
6- 4
10

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 11/29/96

MEMO
TO:
From:
Date:
Re:
Granville Planning Commission
Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
November 29, 1996
GPC meeting on December 2, 1996
I never thought I would be writing such a memo,but here it is. There are no items on the agenda for
the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, December 2, and since I have not heard from any one
regarding a need for a meeting there will not be a meeting. I must inform you that your approval of the
Country Hearth Inn site plan has been appealed by a group of citizens. I have included a copy of the
revised lighting guidelines,please review them and if you have any comments let me know. I hope I
have added to your enjoyment of this holiday weekend with the memo. I will try to