Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 09/22/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 22, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Richard Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Members ASbaslveangt:e, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),Bob Erhard, Bob Hersam, Larry Miller, Bill Acklin, Steve Miller, Joyce &Robert Munro, Jack Burris, Paula &Bob Hinebaugh, A. Bruce Henderson, Bob Seith, Bob Mason, Bob Pitt, Dorothy Garrett, Sue Sauer, Ned Roberts
Minutes of September 4, 1997:
Page 2, Line 5,is" more than 10 sq. ft Page 3, last line of (C),t o"the code irrespective of whether the IGA applied Fourth line up from bottom, a"nd those codes appeared to have withstood legal challenges."
Page 4, end of second paragraph, add 'Iother side of driveway. He can do so."To the motion following, add the fact that Mr. Salvage was the one opposed. Under Board of Education, last sen- tence, "Mr. Hickman can approve 1,
Page 5, end of (A),add "applicable in light of (C)T.o"the motion following (E) , change "BEYOND THIS SIGN" TO ON THE PROPERTY.
Page 8, before Lighting Guidelines, change to "further i f new language comes in."
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. SALVAGE SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Old Business:
First Presbyterian Church, 110 W. Broadway
Mr. Acklin reported that following meetings with the architect and a review of programming needs, they have come up with (1) modifications addressing concerns of the GPC. 2) They tried to
connect the addition more to the Christian Education (CE) Building than to the church. (3) Regarding massing, they moved the eastern 1fa,c0e00back and reduced size of the fellowship room and offices by sq. ft. 4) The eastern portico has been reduced. 5) Trees
identified for removal will be retained. 6) Building material will be textured stucco.
whichMr. Wilkenfeld began the discussion by asking about the roof, drawingseemed to be massive, and Mr. Miller, architect, said the further was "sort of out of scale and would be lower."Mr. Acklin described the windows as being a transition between the two buildings. Mr. Jack Burris added architectural commentary describ- ing the goal of maintaining historical touches. The unscored stucco makes a separate step between the two buildings.
Parking. BZBA has final say on variances, and Ms. Robertson suggested recommending that required spaces be waived in light of the fact, that it would be impossible to conform to code. Mr.
Salvage wanted it officially meet: parking noted that the application does not requirements and· BZBA approval 'is required. Mr: Stansbury did not want to state any recommendations, but merely note that it was discussed.
Ms. Robertson asked about a space on south elevation and was told that was the dishwashing area with storage on second floor. She would like to have windows added there.
Setback. The CE building is in the right of way, and the Village needs to grant approval on whether applicant can build in the ROW. Nothing has been done officially yet, although Mr. iHsisckumesan. did not anticipate any opposition but there may be legal The portico would be in the ROW.
The problem, Mr. Bob Seith stated, is that Locust is not a dedicated drive but a piece of the public square owned by all the citizens. It' s a vacating issue, a historic issue, and he wondered if this is an appropriate use of the public square. Although Mr. Seith was carefully listened to, this is not a setback issue. Dorothy Garrett thought we needed to address the fact of someone' s property value and the fact that he bought the property on the public square and then learned it was a public egress. Mr. Salvage stated that Village Council decided this was OK. Although members agreed that the ROW was not a real issue with GPC, it is hereby noted that it was discussed. Mr. Seith mentioned his architectural concerns, and details were provided by Mr. Miller. Mr. Seith would like more setback on tthhee wfaecsatdean. d feels there is insufficient degree of definition on He feels it needs more work. Mr. Salvage wondered why Mr. Seith apparently changed his mind, as the new plan would seem to satisfy his expectations better. Mr. Seith quoted his statement at last meeting, "I would prefer it not be there at all, but if it had to be there, I appreciate what is happening.M"uch of what is hsaimppielanring on the east is a big improvement and he is looking for a bit of life to the west side. Mr. Miller responded by saying the lower panel of the big glass window is not totally resolved yet. He has a problem with spandrels and too much glass historically.
Distance Between Buildings. They are not expanding on the west side and it' s in line with the CE building. Mr. Acklin said it would cover the existing sidewalk. Mr. Reyazi added that it' s more than 10' to Mr. Seith' s property line.
from Lot Coverage exceeds 50 per cent and would require a variance BZBA.
Massing. A subjective matter. It looks smaller than the first plan and the east entrance is not so grand. Mr. Myers thought this plan came a long way and the connection with CE building a big improvement. The smaller portico is good, and the ngelaigshsboprahnoeolsd. are better, the design fits better into the
Landscaping. Approval is needed by Tree and Landscape
2
Committee eventually.
Architectural Review Overlay.
met all criteria under 1161. 02.
Mr. Reyazi thought application
Alternative Zoning Certificate procedures. All information required for Phase Landscaping I have been submitted {1161. 03(d)1( )}. and engineering can be provided later.
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION, PHASE I OF AN ALTERNATIVE ZONING CERTIFICATE {1161, 03.D}M;R. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Greg Ross, IGA, 484 South Main Street
The Finding of Fact from the last meeting has to be adopted as formal decision of GPC. A few changes were made in the text provided:
B) End sentence with "Ordinances."
D) Change to "Granting a variance to the IGA would give it a special. privilege that is denied by the ordinances to other lands and structures in the same zoning district." E) Change to "in.vo.lv.ing the sign. In addition, it may be
nceacrerisesdary to move it when improvements to South Main Street are out. The general
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT FOR IGA SHOPPING CENTER AS MODIFIED. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road
Although nobody was present tonight, the existing sign is 3' 6"x6' and the proposed sign is the same. This sign would be over the maximum of 10 sq. ft, so would require a variance. The 720 hSaqs. ftc.ormreecntetiodned on the application is probably a typo but nobody it.
The application will remain tabled.
New Business:
Bob Hersam and Jeff Kobunski, 27, 28, and 29 Thornewood Subdivision
The applicants wish to build houses on three lots in Thorne- wood Subdivision. They would be 50' from ROW, which places them in vthideedTC. OD. There is village water available, but sewer must be pro- because Mr. Hersam said there is one house there already, and back. of the topography, the three must be built less than 100' Mr. Hersam and Bob Erhard described the possible sewer connections and said it is still undecided. Before working
further, they wanted a positive reaction from GPC.
Mr. Myers stated that he would like to see a graphic depiction. The purpose of the TCOD is to protect and preserve the visual qualities and rural character of Granville, and it would not appear that this application would adhere to 1176 requirements in
3
4
granting a 50' setback. Mr. Salvage stated it would be hard to force the houses to be set farther back.
Mr. Erhard thought this would still limit access points curb and openings and promote architectural continuity. Mr. Wilkenfeld
does not think that is quite true and wants to adhere to the code. bBuuiltd.Mr. Salvage stated that would make it hard for people to These houses would be above the level of the street and many trees would remain. Mr. Myers did not know how we would know that without more information on what impact would occur. He wants to see a proposed grading plan and to know what the impact would be at 90' setback. He would rather leave the requirement at 100' unless applicants can show a grade impact plan. Mr. Erhard said aPblaonust are incomplete because they wanted to know what GPC thought the idea.
Mr. Stansbury asked whether they could design a house to fit in the land within the TCOD. Mr. Wilkenfeld added that he heard
George Parker speak to the Land Conservancy about creative land planning and clustering. Mr. Myers thought houses could be designed to fit on a slope, but these drawings are not it.
Mr. Herson urged members to view the site. The concept for
Thornewood was from the 19605 and since then the Village added TCOD requirements. Mr. Erhard said clustering has not been considered but there may be restrictions with single-family housesMY.-. -Myers thought that even with rezoning, clustering on the flat land would be an improvement and should be considered.
Mr. Erhard wants to table the application, and Ms. Montgomery thought the next step should be a work session.
Mr. Salvage the owner should have the right to build on his lots within the regulations, and GPC needs to come up with a way wfohratheivmer.to build houses, whether clustering, varying TCOD, or
Mr. Wilkenfeld would like to see color photos of the sites.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Wildwood Park, Granville Recreation Commission
Ned Roberts explained that the applicant wish to install orecscturopoymings with storage in the north end of existing shelter house, a 24' x 8' area. This is in the TCOD and Village water and sewer are available. It will be buff color split face cement block.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville IGA, 484 South Main Street
The applicant wishes to install a temporary 39. 02 sq. ft.
4
banner Approvaflor one week below the existing shopping center sign. promotionhsa.s been granted in the past for banners for special
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MidO-hio Development, 1943 NewarkG- ranville Road
Mr. Reyazi stated that according to 1175.05, any change in SBD
needs to be approved by GPC. This is a permitted use and it complies with ordinance.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED.
Mr. Salvage does not think this should ever have come to GPC because a zoning certificate is to build a new building, but Ms· Robertson disagreed and stated that we should be glad Mr. Reyazi has read the code so carefully.
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Lighting Guidelines. Guidelines will be first on the next agenda.
GPC Rules and Regulations".Again, read Section VIII.F. for next time.
Finding of Fact
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR ITEM A UNDER
OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS B, C, AND D UNDER NEW BUSINESS AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MS. ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND FINDING
OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:
Next Meeting:
10: 30 p.m.
October 20. No meeting on October 13 or 27.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 09/08/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 8, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Richard Montg6mery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Members ASbaslveangt:e, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel)G, reg Ross, Art Morrow, Steve Cramer, Kevin Cramer, Eloise Dezwarte, Katherine Blake, Mary Albright, Bob Parsley, LeaAnn. Parsley, Doug Kaiser, Shawn Redman, Rochelle Steinberg, Robin Bartlett, Dave Banan, Scott Pryor, GBaurebnatrhaerM, cfarland, Larry Dickson, Joe Hickman, Judy. and Dennis Fred Anderson
Minutes of August 11, 1997:
Page 1, under Paragraph (1),change "The only" to "A."Page 2, second paragraph, 4th line, change p" ossible" to "preferred. " . Third paragraph, change to "Conceptually, Ms. Robertson concludes that Mr. Reagan' s advice is to think of the plan as an addition to the Education Building."Same paragraph last 3 lines, change to "a third building would look out of place between the two existing buildings. " 4th paragraph, 5th line, change to "portico; it should not be two stories high."
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. MYERS SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Old Business:
Stephen and Katherine Blake, 212 East Elm
The applicants received partial approval in May to restore their home and will follow the alternative Zoning Certificate procedure as described in 1161. 03(d).Now the applicants wish to convert the section to the east, facing the alley, into a screen porch and add a new door and two new windows to the rear. The windows to be
removed from the front will be installed in the back, and new windows will be put in the front.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Greg Ross, IGA, 484 South Main Street
Mr. Reyazi reported that this application for a sign was remanded to GPC by Village Council after its denial by GPC, stating that the Finding of Fact was inadequate in conveying the infor- mation GPC had considered in arriving at its decision. The applicant wishes to replace the existing 57 sq. ft. ground sign with another of the same size at the same location, in the TCOD. Because of size and height, it is a nonconforming use, and the business has 113 sq. ft. of total signage. This should be tchoinssidinesretadncaer,equest for a variance from the sign requirements. In under 1189. 10 GPC handles this situation.
L.
Mr. :Stansbury stated that· under· 1189·, our. -reasoning toward··· denial was: (1) any change made must be brought to a new sign in nonconformance into consistency with existing code, including 444 changing lettering on the sign; (2) it is more than 12' high and it is.410 sq.ft; (3)t,hey can only have one ground sign per lot and 3!it sthqe.rfet.are two; (4) maximum signage is 24 sq.ft, and this is 113
Mr. Art Morrow, attorney for IGA, stated that the application did not get presented right to GPC. The application did not in- clude a variance request. A Finding of Fact, conclusions, and reasons for the decision are required. All the applicant wants to dimoprisovecmhaenngte. the lettering on the sign, which would clearly be an He could have applied for a new sign but because of the expense and visibility, he preferred to apply for a variance. Mr. Morrow does not believe the change would affect health, safety,
and general welfare of the public. He cited criteria under
1147. 03: (a) special circumstances are that the business sits quite
a way from the road and needs a sign; (b) a literal interpretation of the zoning code would deprive applicant of rights enjoyed by othersa-l-l they are asking for is a change in lettering; (c) special circumstances do not result from actions of applicantt-h-ey have not done anything to this point; (d) this would not grant special privileges to applicant; (e) the nearest residence is
Briner' s, and they cannot see the business from their house. Mr. Ross added that he was told to wait because of the Certi- fied situation, but that will be a long time. IGA would like to
make a change now.
Mr. Wilkenfeld stated that (1) we are trying to encourage pCeeorptliefietdo change nonconforming old signs to adhere, as with the sign. If we accept this for IGA, we must do so for everyone. 2) The sign is in the right of way, and the Village is liable in case of injuries. 3) the Village has potential for
gsirgannt money which will allow us to upgrade that whole area, and the or its location may have to be changed anyway. Mr. Morrow
traekspeonded that the grant money has not been awarded yet, and may a long time. He added that Certified is much more visible than the IGA. All the applicant wants ted-aisEfm th-ee--- regulations.
Ms. Robertson found it interesting that Mr. Morrow brought up visibility. Somebody told her that the sign was too high and Ms. Robertson is not sure the sign is doing what IGA wants it to do. Mr. Ross said they want to capture some Rt. 661 business as well as local traffic. Ms. Robertson would like to work toward a sign
everybody can agree on and which would conform with the code. People working on the sign code thought about that sign and others and were concerned about them, so it was written with the hope that as People replaced or changed signs, they would do so meeting code. Maybe another type of sign would be more visible and more con- forming.
Ms. Montgomery thought there are special circumstances because it is part of the whole multi-tenant sign that advertises the other businesses. Mr. Salvage added that the TCOD was created after IGA was annexed, and if it were not in the TCOD, there would be no problem. Mr. Reyazi disagreed, but Mr. Salvage does not see a big
2
C
3
problem.
Mr. Myers looked at the criteria to be considered in 1147. 03:
A) Special circumstances or conditions exist Peculiar which are to the land or structure involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. According to Mr. Morrow, circumstances appear to be the location of the business and the fact that we should not interpret vthaeriacnocdee. in the manner it is written and we should grant a
B) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. Certified had to conform to the
1
1. I. ordinance. enjoyed ijoes il.erai in,erpretation deprive 11*uL 11.9.- 6-8 by others (like Certified)w?ould Certified enjoy other rights when they came in under the same ordinances? M(r. Morrow thought not.)
C) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. The IGA did not place their store in that location. Mr. Morrow responded that the sign was in the township and when annexed, it nonconformed. Mr. Myers thought in that case the business should carry through the criteria which
awnonueldxaatpiopnly. to the code eucn though the IGA -di=d**a*pp=ly for
r 4
D) Granting of the variance will ot confer on the applicant
any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. If we were to grant a variance here and then deny a similar request by Certified or others, that might set a precedent along that strip. Certified
might like as many square feet as the .IGA sign has. E) Granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the Persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. Having the sign in the right of way is a major obstruction under the health, safety, and general welfare criterion, and liability issues may occur.
More discussion ensued about the multi-business sign, the 24 sq. ft. limit, the height of the sign, total signage, monument signs, the other sign across the drive (Mr. Ross said that will be removed)a,nd the location in the right of way. Mr. Reyazi did not want to make the right of way an issue here. Liability is a con- bceilrint,y,he stated, but this can be obtained by a release of lia- issue eitahned rh.e did not want to make improvements to Main Street an and Ms. Robertson thought the sign could be designed now moved later on if necessary. We could plan ahead.
Ms. Robertson said they researched other communities with similar circumstances when the sign code was written, and tre have been no liability issues arise. The code was designed to make j the area more attractive. She suggested redesigning the sign to / mreadkuecea pheaiigrhot.f signs side by side rather than atop each other to j
10s t- )-, 5.'L .=/
frtif<41
Mr. Morrow stated that the last there- in»' sentence of 1189. 04(k) was not 1995··,·T,h:e' sentence limists people, ,from, using their s-igns and should be removed. Mr. Myers respectfully disagreed. Mr.
Wilkenfeld thought a work session would be appropriate. Ms. Robertson said there is a precedent for multi-businesses sign at Elm and Main Streets where they had to conform.
Compromise could be possible, members thought. Mr. Morrow
does not see how a variance could be achieved at this point. Mr.
Ross asked whether he could keep the multi-business sign as is and leave in the one on the other side 12- 0
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. MR. SALVAGE
SECONDED, AND THE VOTE WAS 1 IN FAVOR AND 4 OPPOSED. CjS-5*0
New Business:
Steve Cramer, 235 East Broadway
Mr. Cramer wishes to install an adjustable basketball back- board and hoop on the edge of the driveway. This is considered a structure because of its permanent location. MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Lawrence and Marie Dickson, Lots 147 and 148 Bryn Du Woods
The Dicksons wish to acquire a 0. 16 acre parcel of the adjoin- ing property, which would lead to Lot 147 being reduced to 0. 71 acres and Lot 148 increasing to 2. 99 acres. Mr. Dickson said the
Parcel is a small triangle which related more to the Dickson property than to ·the neighbor 's. GPC members determined that the
request was for a minor modification.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Board of Education, 130 North Granger Street
Mr. Joe Hickman stated that the school district has submitted
an application for demolition of part of the old school. The applicant has already obtained a demolition permit. The bids are out and it appears to be affordable. Community meetings have been held and were generally positively received. He cited a letter
from neighbor Robin Bartlett in support of the demolition. Ms. Robertson asked about asbestos removal, and Mr. Hickman said there are set regulations to be followed in the process. It will be done first.
Mr. Reya·34 can approve this with GPC approval, which was granted. 0.
Scott Ryan, Leader Printing, 56 Westgate Drive
The applicant wishes to replace the existing ground sign, which was damaged by storms, with a new 9 sq. ft. ground sign.
i--
4
There are other signs which area. T·h-e,e«xist,ing sign ..is appear to exceed maximum allowable sign noneon-f·orming' and· any,"change must "bringthe
sign into conformance. Mr. Ryan said the old sign was quite high and ugly and the storm broke it apart. It could be made to
resemble the navy and gold signs at Erinwood, the same size as the old sign but lower down, maybe 4' high. It' s just to show people where to turn into the business.
Mr. Reyazi said there are three signs there now, in the side, back, and front, and Mr. Ryan said the homely building is enhanced by signage. Members agreed that they are only considering the sign that blew down, not total signage at this point. The criteria were applied to the application:
A) Special circumstances or conditions exist which are Peculiar to the land or structure involved and which are not
dapisptlircicabtsle. Ttohisothceorndlaitniodns oisr nsotrtucatpuprelicsabinlethie:s*aSme-e-r€32ltZ12y- --:-7-=-- j»6*1 C+C3-- Ej0»»35'*»
B) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. There are special circumstances under CSD. This is not in the TCOD. Although 1189. 04(k)
required compliance, members did not think this application should refer to all other signage. This sign would be in compliance.
Approval of this sign would not relieve applicant of bringing other signs into compliance at a later date.
C) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. The sign was damaged by a storm or an act of nature.
D) Granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant
anY undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. We are looking for
compliance on the property. Condition placed on approval is that compliance be achieved with each new sign application.
E) Granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the Pvaerrsiaonnscer.esiding or working within the vicinity of the proposed of The sign needs to be at least one foot outside the right way.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE SUBJECT
TO (1) APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY APPROVE 0l/ ANY OTHER OF THE NONCONFORMING SIGNS BEYOND THISS-G+N, AND (2)
THAT THE SIGN BE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. MS.
ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Judy and Dennis Guenther, 120 West Broadway, Gift Basket Shop
in The applicants wish to refurbish and change the existing sign front of the property, install an awning with a sign on it to the rear, paint the exterior of the house, install flower boxes in
5
front and rear of instail-" the structure, install a picket fence, and approvedlibgy hBZtBf-iAx.tures ron the· buirlding .-T·h' e'"' n·-onconforming u-se-<was ' -
Ms. Guenther explained that the color of the house will be pale yellow with white trim and green shutters. The finished side
of the picket fence will have to face the neighbors. Signs are a
separate issue and a separate application.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF EVERYTHING ON APPLICATION
EXCEPT SIGNS ; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Because the business is in a residential district, the signs require a variance. Signs are not permitted in residential
districts. But the sign in front has been there for many years as a nonconforming sign. Since BZBA already gave permission to have the business, the sign needs to be approved. Only one sign per· business is permitted, but the awning sign would be facing the alley and not very visible from the front. Variances would be for
the size of the sign, the number of signs, and the fact that it is bnoutildoinngth.e bCuoinldsiidnegr,ataioltnhough there is not room for a sign on the of the criteria is as follows:
A) Special circumstances or conditions exist which are Peculiar to the land or structure involved and which are not
applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. This is a nonconforming commercial use in a residential neighborhood, which BZBA approved. Special circumstances are the configuration of the building which precludes a sign on it.
B) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. Mr. Pinkerton next door recently
changed his sign.
C) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. The applicants bought the property in its present location.
D) Granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant
any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands
or structures in the same zoning district. Since Mr. Pinkerton got
approval for his sign, no undue privileges are present here.
E) Granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the vPaerrsiaonnscer.esiding or working within the vicinity of the proposed No adverse effects are apparent.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE REQUEST FOR VARIANCES ON SIGNS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Calvin Shaw, 137 North Plum Street
6
The applicant ·would, like .to enclose.the :perch in ·the ·northwest '· ··-
Corner of his house so that The a washer and dryer can be placed there. house.space above the porch is occupied by the second story of the
Mr. Fred Anderson, contractor, said there are several mistakes on the application. The total area to be enclosed is 50 square feet (10'x5')n,ot 150. There will be no digging; it' s on a concrete slab. There will be a 36" exterior door and a 36"x30" window. They could use either vinyl siding or lap siding in front. The old siding is no longer available. Consensus agreed that vinyl would be acceptable.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH VINYL; MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road
The applicant wishes to replace existing sign with a new 10' ground sign bigger than the maximum permitted. A variance is required because it is in a residential district. No one was
present to describe the sign, and since the application says it is
720 sq. ft, members chose to table application.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION; MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Douglas J.-Kaiser
Mr. Kaiser explained that his wife Susan has been operating a catering home occupation since 1990. She offers cooking
demonstration classes, but the business has increased and she would like to expand her operation. It would require more parking and bringing in an additional employee. There are no suitable Commercial locations, and the Kaisers offered to buy a 1. 7-acre lot on Newark-Granville and Fern Hill with contingency to obtain approval for the business within sixty days. Neither the Village
nor the Township allows a home to be turned into a business. Mr. Kaiser would like to initiate a motion to add cooking schools to htheearlinisgt. of conditional uses under 1181 and arrange for a public
residMenr.tiaRleyazi thought it possible to add a conditional use to a district. The business would be attractive to Granville. The definition would be specific, i.e.,cooking school, and define that precisely.
Mr. Salvage thought this would be hard to write. He feels
Strongly about converting residences into business districts. We have a VBD so that we can restrict residential areas. He sees this
as a beginning of an erosion process. Mr. Myers stated such an idea should be site-specific, for it' s hard to change the overall
7
code. A specific property is precise.. different because you can be very and write .t.hat into the .text ·as .a..contract zoning to ,PUD Mr. Reyazi thought it easier to modify PUD. Mr. Myers added that if we change home occupation uses, there are other things we cannot anticipate if we make it general. Mr. Reyazi thought you could set
an initiative to change the zoning or think about it and talk about it at a later meeting.
Mr. Kaiser could come in with a cooking school definition and list the activities to be done there. Mr. Stansbury said we could limit the number of employees, etc.,but he is disinclined to change the ordinances. Mr. Wilkenfeld feels there other avenues, i. e.,SBD, where there are other lots available. Mr. Salvage would
prefer looking at such applications on a site-by-site basis. This would require BZBA approval.
Consensus was that GPC should not initiate any kind of recommendation to VC. GPC will explore this further a€* language new comes in. f
Lighting Guidelines
Mr. Reyazi included drawings of what sites would look like in residential and commercial streets. Please examine these and bring in your comments.
GPC Rules and Regulations"
Mr. Reyazi provided some language regarding ex parte contact for your review. Mr. Hurst is not entirely satisfied with Section VIIIF, so read it and bring in your suggestions.
Finding of Fact
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR BLAKE AND ITEMS B THROUGH F UNDER NEW BUSINESS AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MS. ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:
Next Meetings:
10: 55 p. m.
September 22 and October 13, a holiday.
Respe6tfully submitted,
Betty Allen
8

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 10/29/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 20, 1997
Minutes
I..p..1*.:,'*... . . . ¢., k 4....-f .'...... .·,Z,.KZ'r- I'I.I-.7, 2:'- -u ..CL' T.., ' . '11n.. r. .':, ,. T„,·14-:I -.,1,; 2-· ,- . Members Present: Peter Marshall for Maxine Montgomery, Lyn Robertson, Richard Salvage, Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: Keith Myers, Gary Stansbury Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel)N,ed Roberts, Joellen Brown, John Compton, Ron Madison, George Fackler, Frits B. Rizor,
1 „Tim Snider
us1 *18 2A-/
Minutes of September 22, 1997:
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED AND MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Old Business:
First Presbyterian Church, 110 W. Broadway
At the last GPC meeting approval was granted for Phase I of this application. The Finding of Fact has to be adopted as the formal decision of the Commission.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED0 *ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR PHASE I OF THE 8PpLCATIOSN F-.O*RMAL_FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
John Compton, 341 East Broadway
Mr. Compton wishes to attach a 25' x214'." x 16' high garage at the rear of his house. Materials will match siding and shingles. The south exterior, which will function as retaining wall, will be ncootncbreetevisbilboclek afrnodmrethpelace an old retaining wall. The garage will street.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Joellen and Larry Brown, 348 North Granger Street
The Browns wish to construct a 12' x23' wooden deck on the back of the house with access ramp and add railings to the front porch and stairs leading to it.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
David Sanor, 325 East College Street
Mr. Sanor wishes to replace the roof with shingles and install a 30' x30' skylight in the south side of the house. He is not here
tonight, but Mr. Reyazi explained that he does not need a zoning certificate for replacement of the roof but does need one for the skylight, which will be in the back and not visible from the street. The roof will be of laminated architectural shingles with
wood shake roof '' »-"- M-'R--'W.» "* a'ppearance and pewter gray color. LKENFELDM- OVED„TO, APPROVE«A, PPLICATIONM ;'"S' ·R.:O*B"ERTSON 4*... 1...
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Allen &Thelma Evans, Ronald &Rdnate Madison, 85 Pinehurst Drive
r 2 r-./*& 422--------
eventMura.llyMapduiston said that he would like to<Ethe property and up a two-story garage. Mr. Reyazi said that a condition -8f the subdivision approval is that it must be part of ltahnedploacrkceedl . in front, the Madison lot, so that it won' t be
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITION
THAT THE_SUBDIVIDED LOT BECOMES PART OF THE MADISON_PROPERTY;
MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVEb.
Henry and Lawanna Luther, 233 South Pearl Street
The applicants wish to install a new fence, but there is al- ready a fence there on two sides, which will produce a gap. MS. Luther has not spoken to the neighbors about removal of their fence, but she will do so. The finished side must face outward.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITION
THAT THE NEW FENCE ON THE NORTH SIDE AND THE WEST SIDE REPLACE
KISTING FENCES_BELQNGING TO NEIGHBORS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Sessions
George Fackler, 2326 Newark-Granville Road
Mr. Fackler is anticipating increased business at his nursery. and would like to propose a "gorgeous site improvement" to comple- ment the Fackler property across the street. Fritz Rizor, general Pmlaenaasgienrg, . staTtheedy that they want to clean up the property and make it would replace the chainlink fence with a 54" 4-rail fence. They would replace the residence with a barn or lath house, and build a greenhouse. There would be 22 parking spaces. They
will cluster the tractors to the side, and they intend to maintain the sign there presently. They would like to avoid any variances if Possible because they are asking for less than they already have. Mr. Reyazi does not think GPC can grant anything not consistent with the ordinances, so he will clarify this. Mr. Fackler said they will need to take down 7 spruce trees and leave 2 and will mill those trees and use them in the barn.
Mr. Reyazi said Mr. Fackler needs to work it out in the context of new SBD requirements regarding height and distance from ROW. Mr. Salvage encouraged him to minimize damage to vegetation. „A
Items requiring further study: 1) provide written tS@* 6 »cY-1504'
0 V CurrCErini-:Trg use of buildings, (2) distance to the ROW lines; TCOD is ' 100' back, (3) match up the project with design standards and ordinances, (4) check on height of buildings.
George Fackler, 1960 Newark-Granville Road
1
2
The, .a. pplication ··f·or a- development has been«tabled ·since· Novem- ber, and Mr. Tim Snider, from Renier Construction, reviewed the Project. He brought up some of the issues listed in a letter from
Mr. Reyazi to Mr. Snider on July 9, 1997:
Roofline Height: The limit wds 301, according to Mr. Reyazi, but their plans measure 37' and they would like to keep it there because of the nature of the architecture. The new SBD states 1%
fcloodoer.s Mwsit.hoRuotbesrptseocnif -ic height, but they are working under the old c *j»Lf, under the suggest@4 that if thg_applicants wish to Brk new code, that would be acceptable.
Setback: The minimum setback for TCOD along Newark-Granville
Road is 100',but the plans show 70'. Their intention was to
screen the parking. Mr. Wilkenfeld preferred that they adhere to the 100' minimum. Mr. Salvage wanted to know what GPC said before. The offices across the street have 70' setbacks. Mr.
Snider wants to make the buildings easily accessible. He said they wstoauyldwcitohnsider putting in a wider sidewalk, of asphalt, if they can the 70' setback.
Landscaping: The Tree and Landscape Committee has approved the plans.
Lighting: They will .epoiate the new lighting guidelines.
Joint Access: Needs_more study. Mr. Reyazi showed a design
suggested by the Master Plan Review Committee.
Signal Analysis: Mr. Marshall said these are always done by
the village.
ect: GPC members asked for further information regarding the proj- 1) look at minutes of previous work sessions, (2) look into
the setback at Murphy' s properties, (3) look at development plans for Galway Drive, especially for setbacks.
Lighting Guidelines. Guidelines will be postponed until we have all members present.
GPC Rules and Regulations".Postponed until everyone is here.
Field Guide to American Houses. All members will receive a copy.
Finding of Fact
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR ITEM A UNDER
OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS A THROUGH E UNDER NEW BUSINESS AS
FORMAL FINDING OF FACT WITH LISTED CONDITIONS. MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Adjournment: 9: 20 p.m.
Next Meetings: November 10 and November November 24.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
f---
3

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 09/08/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 8, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Richard Montg6mery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Members ASbaslveangt:e, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel)G, reg Ross, Art Morrow, Steve Cramer, Kevin Cramer, Eloise Dezwarte, Katherine Blake, Mary Albright, Bob Parsley, LeaAnn. Parsley, Doug Kaiser, Shawn Redman, Rochelle Steinberg, Robin Bartlett, Dave Banan, Scott Pryor, GBaurebnatrhaerM, cfarland, Larry Dickson, Joe Hickman, Judy. and Dennis Fred Anderson
Minutes of August 11, 1997:
Page 1, under Paragraph (1),change "The only" to "A."Page 2, second paragraph, 4th line, change p" ossible" to "preferred. " . Third paragraph, change to "Conceptually, Ms. Robertson concludes that Mr. Reagan' s advice is to think of the plan as an addition to the Education Building."Same paragraph last 3 lines, change to "a third building would look out of place between the two existing buildings. " 4th paragraph, 5th line, change to "portico; it should not be two stories high."
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. MYERS SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Old Business:
Stephen and Katherine Blake, 212 East Elm
The applicants received partial approval in May to restore their home and will follow the alternative Zoning Certificate procedure as described in 1161. 03(d).Now the applicants wish to convert the section to the east, facing the alley, into a screen porch and add a new door and two new windows to the rear. The windows to be
removed from the front will be installed in the back, and new windows will be put in the front.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Greg Ross, IGA, 484 South Main Street
Mr. Reyazi reported that this application for a sign was remanded to GPC by Village Council after its denial by GPC, stating that the Finding of Fact was inadequate in conveying the infor- mation GPC had considered in arriving at its decision. The applicant wishes to replace the existing 57 sq. ft. ground sign with another of the same size at the same location, in the TCOD. Because of size and height, it is a nonconforming use, and the business has 113 sq. ft. of total signage. This should be tchoinssidinesretadncaer,equest for a variance from the sign requirements. In under 1189. 10 GPC handles this situation.
L.
Mr. :Stansbury stated that· under· 1189·, our. -reasoning toward··· denial was: (1) any change made must be brought to a new sign in nonconformance into consistency with existing code, including 444 changing lettering on the sign; (2) it is more than 12' high and it is.410 sq.ft; (3)t,hey can only have one ground sign per lot and 3!it sthqe.rfet.are two; (4) maximum signage is 24 sq.ft, and this is 113
Mr. Art Morrow, attorney for IGA, stated that the application did not get presented right to GPC. The application did not in- clude a variance request. A Finding of Fact, conclusions, and reasons for the decision are required. All the applicant wants to dimoprisovecmhaenngte. the lettering on the sign, which would clearly be an He could have applied for a new sign but because of the expense and visibility, he preferred to apply for a variance. Mr. Morrow does not believe the change would affect health, safety,
and general welfare of the public. He cited criteria under
1147. 03: (a) special circumstances are that the business sits quite
a way from the road and needs a sign; (b) a literal interpretation of the zoning code would deprive applicant of rights enjoyed by othersa-l-l they are asking for is a change in lettering; (c) special circumstances do not result from actions of applicantt-h-ey have not done anything to this point; (d) this would not grant special privileges to applicant; (e) the nearest residence is
Briner' s, and they cannot see the business from their house. Mr. Ross added that he was told to wait because of the Certi- fied situation, but that will be a long time. IGA would like to
make a change now.
Mr. Wilkenfeld stated that (1) we are trying to encourage pCeeorptliefietdo change nonconforming old signs to adhere, as with the sign. If we accept this for IGA, we must do so for everyone. 2) The sign is in the right of way, and the Village is liable in case of injuries. 3) the Village has potential for
gsirgannt money which will allow us to upgrade that whole area, and the or its location may have to be changed anyway. Mr. Morrow
traekspeonded that the grant money has not been awarded yet, and may a long time. He added that Certified is much more visible than the IGA. All the applicant wants ted-aisEfm th-ee--- regulations.
Ms. Robertson found it interesting that Mr. Morrow brought up visibility. Somebody told her that the sign was too high and Ms. Robertson is not sure the sign is doing what IGA wants it to do. Mr. Ross said they want to capture some Rt. 661 business as well as local traffic. Ms. Robertson would like to work toward a sign
everybody can agree on and which would conform with the code. People working on the sign code thought about that sign and others and were concerned about them, so it was written with the hope that as People replaced or changed signs, they would do so meeting code. Maybe another type of sign would be more visible and more con- forming.
Ms. Montgomery thought there are special circumstances because it is part of the whole multi-tenant sign that advertises the other businesses. Mr. Salvage added that the TCOD was created after IGA was annexed, and if it were not in the TCOD, there would be no problem. Mr. Reyazi disagreed, but Mr. Salvage does not see a big
2
C
3
problem.
Mr. Myers looked at the criteria to be considered in 1147. 03:
A) Special circumstances or conditions exist Peculiar which are to the land or structure involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. According to Mr. Morrow, circumstances appear to be the location of the business and the fact that we should not interpret vthaeriacnocdee. in the manner it is written and we should grant a
B) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. Certified had to conform to the
1
1. I. ordinance. enjoyed ijoes il.erai in,erpretation deprive 11*uL 11.9.- 6-8 by others (like Certified)w?ould Certified enjoy other rights when they came in under the same ordinances? M(r. Morrow thought not.)
C) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. The IGA did not place their store in that location. Mr. Morrow responded that the sign was in the township and when annexed, it nonconformed. Mr. Myers thought in that case the business should carry through the criteria which
awnonueldxaatpiopnly. to the code eucn though the IGA -di=d**a*pp=ly for
r 4
D) Granting of the variance will ot confer on the applicant
any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. If we were to grant a variance here and then deny a similar request by Certified or others, that might set a precedent along that strip. Certified
might like as many square feet as the .IGA sign has. E) Granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the Persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. Having the sign in the right of way is a major obstruction under the health, safety, and general welfare criterion, and liability issues may occur.
More discussion ensued about the multi-business sign, the 24 sq. ft. limit, the height of the sign, total signage, monument signs, the other sign across the drive (Mr. Ross said that will be removed)a,nd the location in the right of way. Mr. Reyazi did not want to make the right of way an issue here. Liability is a con- bceilrint,y,he stated, but this can be obtained by a release of lia- issue eitahned rh.e did not want to make improvements to Main Street an and Ms. Robertson thought the sign could be designed now moved later on if necessary. We could plan ahead.
Ms. Robertson said they researched other communities with similar circumstances when the sign code was written, and tre have been no liability issues arise. The code was designed to make j the area more attractive. She suggested redesigning the sign to / mreadkuecea pheaiigrhot.f signs side by side rather than atop each other to j
10s t- )-, 5.'L .=/
frtif<41
Mr. Morrow stated that the last there- in»' sentence of 1189. 04(k) was not 1995··,·T,h:e' sentence limists people, ,from, using their s-igns and should be removed. Mr. Myers respectfully disagreed. Mr.
Wilkenfeld thought a work session would be appropriate. Ms. Robertson said there is a precedent for multi-businesses sign at Elm and Main Streets where they had to conform.
Compromise could be possible, members thought. Mr. Morrow
does not see how a variance could be achieved at this point. Mr.
Ross asked whether he could keep the multi-business sign as is and leave in the one on the other side 12- 0
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. MR. SALVAGE
SECONDED, AND THE VOTE WAS 1 IN FAVOR AND 4 OPPOSED. CjS-5*0
New Business:
Steve Cramer, 235 East Broadway
Mr. Cramer wishes to install an adjustable basketball back- board and hoop on the edge of the driveway. This is considered a structure because of its permanent location. MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Lawrence and Marie Dickson, Lots 147 and 148 Bryn Du Woods
The Dicksons wish to acquire a 0. 16 acre parcel of the adjoin- ing property, which would lead to Lot 147 being reduced to 0. 71 acres and Lot 148 increasing to 2. 99 acres. Mr. Dickson said the
Parcel is a small triangle which related more to the Dickson property than to ·the neighbor 's. GPC members determined that the
request was for a minor modification.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Board of Education, 130 North Granger Street
Mr. Joe Hickman stated that the school district has submitted
an application for demolition of part of the old school. The applicant has already obtained a demolition permit. The bids are out and it appears to be affordable. Community meetings have been held and were generally positively received. He cited a letter
from neighbor Robin Bartlett in support of the demolition. Ms. Robertson asked about asbestos removal, and Mr. Hickman said there are set regulations to be followed in the process. It will be done first.
Mr. Reya·34 can approve this with GPC approval, which was granted. 0.
Scott Ryan, Leader Printing, 56 Westgate Drive
The applicant wishes to replace the existing ground sign, which was damaged by storms, with a new 9 sq. ft. ground sign.
i--
4
There are other signs which area. T·h-e,e«xist,ing sign ..is appear to exceed maximum allowable sign noneon-f·orming' and· any,"change must "bringthe
sign into conformance. Mr. Ryan said the old sign was quite high and ugly and the storm broke it apart. It could be made to
resemble the navy and gold signs at Erinwood, the same size as the old sign but lower down, maybe 4' high. It' s just to show people where to turn into the business.
Mr. Reyazi said there are three signs there now, in the side, back, and front, and Mr. Ryan said the homely building is enhanced by signage. Members agreed that they are only considering the sign that blew down, not total signage at this point. The criteria were applied to the application:
A) Special circumstances or conditions exist which are Peculiar to the land or structure involved and which are not
dapisptlircicabtsle. Ttohisothceorndlaitniodns oisr nsotrtucatpuprelicsabinlethie:s*aSme-e-r€32ltZ12y- --:-7-=-- j»6*1 C+C3-- Ej0»»35'*»
B) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. There are special circumstances under CSD. This is not in the TCOD. Although 1189. 04(k)
required compliance, members did not think this application should refer to all other signage. This sign would be in compliance.
Approval of this sign would not relieve applicant of bringing other signs into compliance at a later date.
C) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. The sign was damaged by a storm or an act of nature.
D) Granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant
anY undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. We are looking for
compliance on the property. Condition placed on approval is that compliance be achieved with each new sign application.
E) Granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the Pvaerrsiaonnscer.esiding or working within the vicinity of the proposed of The sign needs to be at least one foot outside the right way.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE SUBJECT
TO (1) APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY APPROVE 0l/ ANY OTHER OF THE NONCONFORMING SIGNS BEYOND THISS-G+N, AND (2)
THAT THE SIGN BE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. MS.
ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Judy and Dennis Guenther, 120 West Broadway, Gift Basket Shop
in The applicants wish to refurbish and change the existing sign front of the property, install an awning with a sign on it to the rear, paint the exterior of the house, install flower boxes in
5
front and rear of instail-" the structure, install a picket fence, and approvedlibgy hBZtBf-iAx.tures ron the· buirlding .-T·h' e'"' n·-onconforming u-se-<was ' -
Ms. Guenther explained that the color of the house will be pale yellow with white trim and green shutters. The finished side
of the picket fence will have to face the neighbors. Signs are a
separate issue and a separate application.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF EVERYTHING ON APPLICATION
EXCEPT SIGNS ; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Because the business is in a residential district, the signs require a variance. Signs are not permitted in residential
districts. But the sign in front has been there for many years as a nonconforming sign. Since BZBA already gave permission to have the business, the sign needs to be approved. Only one sign per· business is permitted, but the awning sign would be facing the alley and not very visible from the front. Variances would be for
the size of the sign, the number of signs, and the fact that it is bnoutildoinngth.e bCuoinldsiidnegr,ataioltnhough there is not room for a sign on the of the criteria is as follows:
A) Special circumstances or conditions exist which are Peculiar to the land or structure involved and which are not
applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. This is a nonconforming commercial use in a residential neighborhood, which BZBA approved. Special circumstances are the configuration of the building which precludes a sign on it.
B) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. Mr. Pinkerton next door recently
changed his sign.
C) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. The applicants bought the property in its present location.
D) Granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant
any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands
or structures in the same zoning district. Since Mr. Pinkerton got
approval for his sign, no undue privileges are present here.
E) Granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the vPaerrsiaonnscer.esiding or working within the vicinity of the proposed No adverse effects are apparent.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE REQUEST FOR VARIANCES ON SIGNS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Calvin Shaw, 137 North Plum Street
6
The applicant ·would, like .to enclose.the :perch in ·the ·northwest '· ··-
Corner of his house so that The a washer and dryer can be placed there. house.space above the porch is occupied by the second story of the
Mr. Fred Anderson, contractor, said there are several mistakes on the application. The total area to be enclosed is 50 square feet (10'x5')n,ot 150. There will be no digging; it' s on a concrete slab. There will be a 36" exterior door and a 36"x30" window. They could use either vinyl siding or lap siding in front. The old siding is no longer available. Consensus agreed that vinyl would be acceptable.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH VINYL; MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road
The applicant wishes to replace existing sign with a new 10' ground sign bigger than the maximum permitted. A variance is required because it is in a residential district. No one was
present to describe the sign, and since the application says it is
720 sq. ft, members chose to table application.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION; MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Douglas J.-Kaiser
Mr. Kaiser explained that his wife Susan has been operating a catering home occupation since 1990. She offers cooking
demonstration classes, but the business has increased and she would like to expand her operation. It would require more parking and bringing in an additional employee. There are no suitable Commercial locations, and the Kaisers offered to buy a 1. 7-acre lot on Newark-Granville and Fern Hill with contingency to obtain approval for the business within sixty days. Neither the Village
nor the Township allows a home to be turned into a business. Mr. Kaiser would like to initiate a motion to add cooking schools to htheearlinisgt. of conditional uses under 1181 and arrange for a public
residMenr.tiaRleyazi thought it possible to add a conditional use to a district. The business would be attractive to Granville. The definition would be specific, i.e.,cooking school, and define that precisely.
Mr. Salvage thought this would be hard to write. He feels
Strongly about converting residences into business districts. We have a VBD so that we can restrict residential areas. He sees this
as a beginning of an erosion process. Mr. Myers stated such an idea should be site-specific, for it' s hard to change the overall
7
code. A specific property is precise.. different because you can be very and write .t.hat into the .text ·as .a..contract zoning to ,PUD Mr. Reyazi thought it easier to modify PUD. Mr. Myers added that if we change home occupation uses, there are other things we cannot anticipate if we make it general. Mr. Reyazi thought you could set
an initiative to change the zoning or think about it and talk about it at a later meeting.
Mr. Kaiser could come in with a cooking school definition and list the activities to be done there. Mr. Stansbury said we could limit the number of employees, etc.,but he is disinclined to change the ordinances. Mr. Wilkenfeld feels there other avenues, i. e.,SBD, where there are other lots available. Mr. Salvage would
prefer looking at such applications on a site-by-site basis. This would require BZBA approval.
Consensus was that GPC should not initiate any kind of recommendation to VC. GPC will explore this further a€* language new comes in. f
Lighting Guidelines
Mr. Reyazi included drawings of what sites would look like in residential and commercial streets. Please examine these and bring in your comments.
GPC Rules and Regulations"
Mr. Reyazi provided some language regarding ex parte contact for your review. Mr. Hurst is not entirely satisfied with Section VIIIF, so read it and bring in your suggestions.
Finding of Fact
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR BLAKE AND ITEMS B THROUGH F UNDER NEW BUSINESS AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MS. ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:
Next Meetings:
10: 55 p. m.
September 22 and October 13, a holiday.
Respe6tfully submitted,
Betty Allen
8

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 11/24/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING »COMMISSION ·
November 24, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Richard Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Members Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld Absent:
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Joe Hickman, Lyle King, Creston King, Gerry Martin, Mark Zarbaugh
Minutes of November 10, 1997:
Add to Minutes of October 20, Mr. Salvage acted as chair in Mr. Stansbury' s absence.
Page 1, Under Left Turn from N/G Road, Line 3, "condition, but
illage Council eliminated it because it was not within BZBA' s Jurisdiction. " Correct spelling of "provide" in first line under
Fackler' s.
the aPdadgietio2n,aul nder Line 3 in the Mr. Myers paragraphto, "g.r.a.nt ROW." Delete the 3 lines after the motion.
Page 3, halfway down, "Ownership of the alleyway is uncertain
at this point, but ownership is outside the jurisdiction of GPC." Page 34, Line 7, "first three halls." Under Greenhouse, put
quotes around architectural style.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Old Business:
Lighting Guidelines
Mr. Reyazi would like to use the Lighting Guidelines as part Of the subdivision regulations and part of the zoning ordinances. If we adopt these guidelines, they will require V.C. approval then come back to GPC as modifications to subdivision requirements. Rather than just a guide, the guidelines need to have language that says GPC can use its judgment on applications. Mr. Myers recom- mended that Mr. Reyazi upgrade the language on the guidelines to grant GPC authorization to have flexibility to change requirements. How much flexibility GPC has and what modifications are required, stated Ms. Montgomery, would depend on each situation. Mr. Stans- bvaurryianacdede.d that without flexibility, applicants would need to get a Some GPC members like shoebox fixtures, and Ms.
Robertson thought there could be a statement saying that GPC has authority to vary fixtures.
fixturMesr. Myers suggested higher lights than 12dv'.£iB. uilding-mounted are a third style. Mr. Salvage likes see*ff-lights in St
parking lots and Granville style on .pesi-:meter of parking lots, with Esplanade lights.4*4-f*reeft*;L* l«\
0-L> -DFAL14.*£37«£
V'"'«w ""'*N ®' v'"''' "'M R''I ".M 'YERSM*'O-'V' ED' , F' OR-,A „PPROVAL-O .·F* ' T·,HE«4'A+MENDED' V "·ibLAGEO'>F"":9.3.,. .:.%,
GRANVILLE EXTERIOR LIGHTING COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
REQUIREMENTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER, SEPTEMBER 5 REVISION. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Rules and Regulations
After discussion of ex parte regulations,
MR. MYERS MOVED TO AMEND THE RULES TO INCLUDE EX PARTE CONTACT
AS PARAGRAPH II OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS. MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Joe Hickman, 326 North Granger Street
Mr. Hickman stated that he wishes to modify the previously
approved application by adding a single 8' garage door of the same type adjacent to the already approved 18' wide overhead door, which would now be 16' wide. This way he can get three vehicles in the
garage. 5ALVAG- F
MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Village Brewing Company, 128 E. Broadway, Thomas Fuller
This application for an emergency exit from second floor was tabled at the last meeting, pending a change in roofing materials.
Mr. Reyazi reported the concerns expressed at the BZBA meet- ing, 1) ownership of the alley, 2) drop-down stairway, 3)
turning the stairway toward the back, (4) bridging the stairway across to Mr. Blackstone' s building, (5) directing the stairway to the back parking lot. BZBA tabled the application, pending further discussion between applicants and Blackstones and with the Building Code people.
includMer. Martin reported that they redesigned the stairway to a metal roof. He would prefer a stationary stairway to a swing-down one. Swing-down stairs are no longer in the Building Codes, but exceptions may be made if nothing else could be built. This would require a letter from the Village to the Building Code people. The stairs may not exit to the parking lot because that lot is private property. They would have difficulty directing the stairs to the north because of utilities in place there.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TAKE UP THE ISSUE PREVIOUSLY TABLED. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS MODIFIED, WITH A
METAL ROOF, COLOR TO BE STAFF-APPROVED, STAIRS PAINTED BLACK, AS PER DRAWING WHICH IS PART OF THE APPLICATION. MR. SALVAGE
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Denison' University' u Sunset ' Hill' Residence"Halls»
At the previous meeting, approval was granted, and now,
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT AS FORMAL
DECISION OF THE GPC FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HALLS. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
L.E. King &Son, Inc.,Excavating, 143 Munson St.
Creston King explained that the existing building is an old sale barn, which of similar they would like to replace with a metal building size and shape just behind the existing building. Then they would tear down the old building and build a gravel parking area.
Mr. Reyazi was concerned about storm water management and he feels the Village Engineer would not be satisfied with the plan provided. Perhaps a grading plan would be helpful. Mr. King
stated that they are at the lowest point of the community and water will run to the creek. Lyle King added that the water goes into a basin and under the old track; however, Mr. Reyazi stated that the ordinances require a storm water plan since this is a new develop- ment in the CSD and in the floodplain. Creston King stated that
Jerry Turner, engineer, had no problem with the plan. Mr. Salvage thought since they are not applying for a change in use, a development plan would not be required, but Mr. Myers referred him to Sec. 1167. 03 of the code. The King design is not a big development but must adhere to requirements.
Mr. Reyazi added that it also requires screening, and he would suggest a solid fence rather than a chainlink one. Creston King
nsoairdththey would plant pine trees, and that there is no fence on the side.
withouMtr. Reyazi told the Kings they can start on the foundation a building certificate, but he will not issue a certificate
until the Village Engineer approves the plan. Although this is a work session, it could be changed to an application with stipula- tions.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO MODIFY THE AGENDA TO INCLUDE THE
KING APPLICATION AS NEW BUSINESS. MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
SALVAGE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE KING APPLICATION SUBJECT
MR
RECEIPT OF ALL INFORMATION NECESSARY
VILLAGE ENGINEER AS REQUIRED BY THE APPROVAL BY THE VILLAGE ENGINEER. MR.
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
TO
AND APPROVAL BY THE
VILLAGE PLANNER AND
WILKENFELD SECONDED,
4tis
07
r „c«··-G-e,or·ge. Fackler,-1»960,·Newark-G- ranvil.t<e,oa*d,«'<
In the packets are various traffic reports and a memo from
Streets and Sidewalks Committee. Mr. Reyazi said that in the
spirit of giving Fackler' s more direction it' s important that GPC make decisions and provide guidelines regarding issues applicants raised last time, i. e.,parking, setbacks, access and circulation of traffic.
Setbacks. Mr. Myers stated that according to the code, GPC
may reduce setbacks, although TCOD requires 100'.Adjacent proper- ties are set back 70' and we are almost bound to 70'. Future
wsiiddee.ning of Cherry Valley Road would further reduce setback on that Mr. Wilkenfeld preferred adhering to the 100' minimum to
protect scenic vistas and maintain open space. The Cherry Valley
side should be more pedestrian oriented.
Circulation and Access. Members felt that there needs to be
more stacking availability for the bank drive-in and that curbcuts must be limited. The drive-in should not interfere with pedestrian
walkways. Joint access to adj acent properties must be considered. Maybe a right-turn-only exit should be planned at the bank. Mr.
Reyazi thought the orientation of the building could be changed for better circulation, and Ms. Robertson suggested flip-flopping the Plan, which would put the restaurant on the Cherry Valley side and put the drive-through in the back. Mr. Myers thought a service
road would be a good idea.
Parking. GPC has provided suggestions to the applicant regarding parking.
The applicant has been given a lot of suggestions and this has taken a lot of time. The applicant is not even here tonight to hear our thoughts.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR ITEMS C AND D
UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND THE KING APPLICATION AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 10: 20 p.m. Next Meetings: December 8 and 22
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen