Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 12/14/98

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 14, 1998
Minutes
WMeilkmebneferlsdPresent: Jack Burriss,KeithMyers,Richard Salvage,Gary Stansbury,William Wernet,Carl
Members Absent.
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon S(entinel),Rufus Hurst, David Neel, Duane Goodwin, Stephen Blake,Dan Stevens
Minutes of November 9: Page 1, under Visitors,change Gary to Greg Ream. Sixth line up from bottom,change b"eyond"in Line 1 to into. Change Voice Vote to Roll Call B(urriss.No.Myers.Yes. Salvage.No. Stansbury.Yes.Wilkenfeld.Yes)
Page 3, line 2, change v"oice vote"to ROLL CALL VOTE OF 3 TO 2 B(URRISS, YES; MYERS,YES,SALVAGE,YES;STANSBURY,NO;WILKENFELD,NO)T,HE MOTION WAS APPROVED. Under Bank First National,Line 3, change to Mr. Salvage stated that only the changes
to the sign should be reviewed because the size of the previous free- standing sign on Prospect Street was granted a variance. Other members ofGPC disagreed.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. SALVAGE
SECONDED,AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Question andAnswer Sessionwith Ixtw Director,Rufus Hurst
Before the regular meeting,Mr. Hurst was requested to address the GPC with respect to properprocedures ofmeetings.
Mr.Hurst statedthat in an application thepublic is not invited to speak,although it is open to the public.In these administrative hearings one or more members of the public may be called on to
testij> and must be placedunder oath. All who plan to speak may be sworn in en masse.In a public
hearing there is no requirement that speakers be placed under oath. It's their opportunity to comment
on the wisdom of a legislative proposal.What is the difference between a public hearing and a hearing open to the public,andwhat is it that gives an individual the right to participate in a hearing
open to the public but not apublic hearing?
There is some discussion about revising some of our coded*ordinances toA ()make things
more clear and 1 (3m)ake changes tomake things enforceable. A lot ofpeople feel that as to certain
basic principles applicable to charter municipalities we ought to be able to structure our procedures
in a way we see fit based on home rule provisions. The courts seem to be allowing us to apply our
own criteria,butwe can't turn an open hearing into apublic hearing.
If the Planning Commission is making the jinal decision,that is an administrative hearing
and open to the public. It is not a public hearing,and their decision must be based on criteria,not
public opinion. Public hearings,or legislative hearings,are those hearings wherein when the GPC is
I
2
2
aN done,all it does GPC is make a recommendation to Village Council as towhat it should do because the represents the begmning of a legislative process.i.e.r,ezoning. Under PUD there is a charter which says all ordinances must be passed by Village Council with GPC recommendation. In an administrative hearing decision,if someone is not happy with the decision,hish/er appeal to Common Pleas. If hesh/e is successful in saying that public opinion plaryeecdourse is to influencedthe thoughtprocess ofthe Board,hesh/ewill be able to get the decision a role or is basedi,npart,onpublic opinion. reversed because itV
If a person canprove s "tandingh,e"s/he has a right to be heard and has to be able to particularized interest"and a personal stake in the outcome. Usually this prove adjacent or contiguous to the subjectproperty. The applicant person has property present testimony in supportofthe application andmay crossem-xaamyionre.ma,not call on any experts to
To the question of who determines standing,Mr.Hurst replied that as a general rule the
chairman runs the meeting and the chairwouldmake the initial preliminary call. However,the chair,
upon challenge by another member will ask the Other members and make a call on whether to hold
the information.If someone can identijj;himh/erself,it might appear that in goodfaith hesh/e will
present relevant evidence andyou accept hish/er standing. Ifyou are unsure,you can askwhat this
persons' particularizedinterest is,vs.a community interest. Ifhesh/e refuses to answer.youwill have
to determine whether to use this evidence. The applicant can help to determine this person' s standing.
Ifyou hear someone speak andyou don' t think it's applicable after all,you can say it's the conclusion
of this Board that this person's testimony is not relevant and should not be used in the Finding of
Fact.
r.
2.
Administrative Hearings:
Applications
Hearings open to the public
Not open to citizens'comments
To speak,citizens must have s'tanding'
Speakers must be sworn ine n(masse)
Citizens may be calledon to tesatn*dmqy be
Crosse-xamined
GPCmakesfinal decision
Decision is basedon criteria
Legislative Hearings:
Public Hearings
The public may speak
Speakers do not have to be sworn in
GPCmakes recommendation to Village Council
Decision based inpart onpublic input
If you allow people to speak in a nonp-ublic hearing,you are setting yourself reversal.Anyone dissatfiie*d with the decision who can convince reviewing authority up for a decision was tainted by those commentswillfind the decision reversed that your should be allowedto speak. Everyone with standing
These ordinances are 33 years old,and when they began,anyone could speak at any time. People may speakal Citizens Comments. Now it is time to review the planning and zoning sections.
Citizens Comments:None
New Business:
Stephen Blake,212 East Elm
The applicant is asking for approval for his alrdady built driveway,which replaced a gravel back yard. Mr. Blake said he had asked for approv before but it was in the wrong placeM.-s. Wimberger said that neighbors'concerns have been withdrawn. 4*
E_1_ MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.
MYERS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Gramnlle GolfCourse Company
The applicant would like to proceed with the dedication of the land in the Bryn Du Woods development,Phase IV,to be designated as open space. This is an administrative act of the GPC. A lot split is necessary to accomplish this,and everything is in order,Ms. Wimberger said. The land will
become property ofthe village and the homeowners'association will take care ofrepairs.
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION. MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
First Presbyterian Church,110 West Broadway
Mr.Burriss excused himselffrom this application. }
Dan Stevens from Robertson construction wants to erect a temporary sign showing four subcontractors'
names. GPC members agreed the sign was too big and would not benefit the village; it
should be no more than 16 sq.ft. Building the church is a community project rather than a commercial advertisennent.
The names on the sign should match,GPC members agreed. The sign should be subdued and
limited to two colors.
The applicant asked to table application until next meeting,when he will bring in a revision.
I.
r - .'
3
4
The sign can stay up for a year from time ofinstallation.
Granville Lumber Company,401 South Main
color anDduane Goodwin explained that the applicant would like to install a new sign,same logo and location,but smaller to fit within the code.
The problem is that the sign cannot be placed outside the TCOD,and the height requested for the new sign because of safety issues,is 6'from the ground to the bottom ofthe sign and cannot be a ground sign because ofthe view.
Mr. Stansbury stated that by changing the sign,applicant runs into TCOD and height problems. Remarkably enough,GPC members recommended applicant to leave the grandfathered sign as it is and just repair the decay;then he won't run into problems with the ordinance.
Mr. Goodwin asked to table the application until he can talk with the applicant.
Finding ofFact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS B (lake and Golf Course)AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR WILKEELI* SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:8:50p.m.
Next Meetings: December and 28 andJanuary 11.
RespecA{illy submitted
Betty Allen

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 09/14/98

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 14, 1998
Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Bill Wernet
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),Dave Shumway, Bob
Erhard, Bob Herson, Robert Engle
Minutes of August 10: Page 1, halfway down page, change "32 to
36".
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None.
Old Business:
Dave Shumway, 204 North Granger Street
The applicant received approval for a solid fence to the
northwest portion of the lot at last meeting. The fence has not
been installed per GPC approval, and he must receive approval for
the revised application. Staff has received several calls from
citizens unhappy about the appearance of the fence, although it
would have been better to receive complaints beforehand. Ms.
Wimberger had told Mr. Shumway he would not be in compliance, but
he proceeded since he had the post-hole digger on hand.
Mr. Shumway said he moved the fence over 16' to put it in better
balance with the house. He ineved. three shrubs and placed the
fence back 3' from original application.
AeL-«4
Mr. Burriss thought the fence should be stained a light
color, and he would be willing to approve the amended fence with
the condition that it be light because a light color would lessen .
the impact of the solid fence. GPC members agreed there should
be a time limit for painting the fence, and they concurred on the
date of Memorial Day, at noon.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE AMENDED FENCE APPLICATION WITH
THE CONDITION THAT A LIGHT OPAQUE STAIN BE APPLIED TO BOTH
SIDES BY MEMORIAL DAY, 1999, AND SUCH COLOR TO BE APPROVED
BY STAFF. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY
MAJORITE WITH ONE NAY VOTE (MYERS).
Bob Hersam, Thornewood Subdivision lots 27, 28,29, West Broadway
Mr. Erhard described the newly revised plans for three
houses on the three lots, throwing out the plans for cluster
housing because citizens objected strongly. The house on Lot 27
is behind the 100' TCOD minimum, but 28 and 29 are not. Other
4. .:
houses in the area are less than driveway 100' back. There would be one for the three lots, and it would be widened toward the street to accommodate passing cars. Mr. Hersam added that the houses cannot be moved back farther because of the trees.
Mr. Salvage noted that "maximum" side setbacks in the ordinances should instead be listed as minimum. He said that
with 100' setbacks, it would be impossible to build on the lots. As planned, these houses would hardly show from the street.
Mr. Wilkenfeld requested that Ms. Wimberger bring to the next meeting the minutes of the meeting where citizens spoke out against the project. The house on Lot 31 was approved at 90' setback, to save some trees, and he feels that sets precedent for the others.
Mr. Erhard said that the purpose of the TCOD was to plan
minimal curbcuts, and the particular circumstances with the hill in the rear and the TCOD in the front necessitate a variance in
order to put the houses in the best location.
Mr. Burriss reviewed the GPC' s preference for cluster hous- ing with driveways in the rear, but some vocal people had made
the statement that the 100' setback was more important than the
number of curbcuts and preferred single-family homes, maintaining
the 100' minimum. A single driveway limits flexibility. He asked about the island, and Mr. Hersam said it protects the tree. Mr.
Burriss reminded the group that a big tree needs a lot of space around it. Mr. Burriss thought the house sites could be repositioned
to move the houses farther back. The road is still private,
but if we make it an exit and entrance, there are certain
requirements. Mr. Erhard would be willing to return for another
work session.
Although Mr. Stansbury agrees with Mr. Wilkenfeld to some
degree, he thinks that the 70' setback is not unreasonable partly
because of the Winter house setback. He would prefer to see a
straight driveway and single curbcut with parking in the rear
rather than in and out driveways.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AS PRESENTED
SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH HOME SITE AND LANDSCAPING
PLANS BY THE TREE AND LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE AT A LATER TIME
AND SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE ENTRANCE AND OTHER ENGINEERING
DETAILS BY THE VILLAGE ENGINEER.
THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked to see the minutes of the citizens'
comments and Mr. Burriss agreed. '
Mr. Hersam requests tabling the application until the
1
2
October 5 meeting. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE THIS TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 5 AND IT SHOULD BE THE FIRST ITEM UNDER OLD BUSINESS.
MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. and Mrs. Leslie Bendorf, 233 West Elm Street
The applicants wish to provide back yard landscaping and integral fence. GPC wished they an had a legal description and a drawing showing relationship to neighboring properties.
Mr. Robert Engle described the project, saying the fence
would be honey almond color. They did not want a solid wall but
chose variety. Most of the fence will not be visible to the
street. Mr. Myers thought the different panels idea was most
unusual.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A UNDER NEW
BUSINESS (SHUMWAY) AND A (BENDORF) UNDER OLD BUSINESS AS
FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND
FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 9: 10 p. m.
Next Meetings: September 28 and October 5
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
1
3

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 09/28/99

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 28, 1998
Mintltna
WMeimllibaemrs Present: Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Wernet, Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Jack Burriss
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon S( entinel)J,ed and Jill LeVere, Park Shai, Ed Vance, Mr. and Mrs. John Denune, Ken and Mindy Tietz, Bob and Ruth Lisle, Ken and Katie Richards
Minutes of September 14: Page 1, Mr. Myers recused himself from the Hersam application.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: Ken Richards reinforced his earlier comments about the HersamK/obunski development on West Broadway. He
thanked the GPC members for their awareness that there are other issues going on other than just rezoning.
1) One of his major concerns is consistency in application of policies. When he wanted to subdivide his land on West
Broadway, it was explained that the nature of the TCOD is to preserve greenspace. He was required to meet all requirements,
including the 100' setback, and was told no variances would be granted. He stressed the need for treating everyone fairly and equally and reminded the group that some lots are unbuildable.
2) When condominiums were proposed for the lot, the
neighbors were opposed because of the extra traffic with one curbcut and four units. They were also concerned about the risk
of having dumpsters left at roadside for too long and about whether emergency vehicles could use the road. Much earlier in
time, Mr. Hersam had said there was a way to build houses under existing regulations. What happened to that idea?
3) Mrs. Richards added that if they are going to widen the
road, they will need to take out even more trees and will wipe out the whole hill.
New Business:
James and Jill LeVere, 216 N. Granger Street
The applicant stated that he would like to remove the
existing garage and put a three-car garage on the back and add a
master bedroom above the garage. They will install new asphalt
and add a deck with french doors between the house and garage off
the kitchen extension. They have a lot of noise and traffic and
wish to move the bedroom away from the traffic. He will put a
shed roof above the concrete slab, just a roof and will match
shingles and windows and stone on chimney. The drive will extend
farther down the lot line, and the turning radius is tight but
do-able. He wants to move two garage doors with windows to the
back of the house.
9
Ms. Wimberger said that a variance is needed for extension
of the driveto the north side of lot line.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED,
INCLUDING THE RIGHT FOR APPLICANT TO MOVE GARAGE DOORS TO
THE EAST END IF HE WISHES, AND INCLUDE A SHED ROOF ABOVE THE
PORCH. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Mindy Tietz, 80 Westgate Drive
Mr. Tietz stated that they are seeking a zoning certificate
for a day-care center. They have received approval from BZBA for
variance for front parking, and Village Council approved day-care
as a conditional use. The building will have no exterior changes
and they can widen the driveway if necessary for two cars to pass
each other; Park Shai thought the drive was currently wide
enough. The owner will repair the driveway. They desire a
chainlink fence in front yard, but this is not permitted in the
code. No signs are requested at this time. They will move the
dumpster from where it is on the plan and it will be at the road
with a 6- enclosure. Mr. Wernet suggested putting it north of
the current location. Mr. Tietz would prefer using 2 screened
trash cans located west of the building, between this building
and the Newark Leader.
Widening the driveway would be quite costly and not really
necessary, but BZBA passed the variance with stipulation that the
driveway be widened. Ingress and egress will be staggered so that
traffic will be less than at a business or office with regular
hours.
Mr. Wernet thought this could be approved contingent upon
staff approval of driveway width.
If the fence is flush with front of building or extends
beyond, it cannot be chainlink. Mr. Tietz will need a 48" wooden
fence, natural or trellis, sealed with paint.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS: (1) ASPHALT DRIVEWAY TO BE MINIMUM OF 16' WIDE;
2) ANY FENCE EXTENDING EVEN WITH OR IN FRONT OF BUILDING BE
WOOD STOCKADE; (3) APPROPRIATE SCREENING BE PUT AROUND
DUMPSTER OR TRASH STORAGE LOCATION. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Keith and Patricia Myers, 229 East College Street
Mr. Myers recused himself and acted as applicant.}
The applicant wants to take down the chainlink and existing
rotting pickets and add a new picket fence and a hemlock hedge.
He also wants to add a basketball area.
John Denune, a neighbor, stated that people come through the
10' ROW at the rear of Lots 10 and 11 on Broadway and park there
without authorization, and he wanted it noted that he wanted to
3
breeplsaucreed the fence that went along the north side of the ROW be for the protection of children. Mr. Myers has no problem with this. Ed Vance, another neighbor, seconded this concern. Mr. Wernet stated that if there are people using the area without authorization, get in touch with someone.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A,B,AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS L(EVERE, TIETZ, MYERS) AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 9: 15 p. m.
Next Meetings: October 5 and October 26
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 10/26/98

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 26, 1998
Minutes
Members Present: Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Jack Burriss, William Wernet
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),William Hanes, Donald
Contini, John Noblick, Louise Sally and Larry Scheiderer, Roger Coombs, M. Daniels
Minutes of September 28: Page 2, Line 3, add to the north side
lot line. Under Tietz, Line 6, change "Clark" to Park.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED; MR.
SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of October 2: Page 1, third line from bottom, add
horizontally before "sliding panels. . ."
Page 2, Line 1 under Hepsworth, change "application" to work
session. Change "The applicant" to Joan Hepsworth. On last
line, change to "The existing second curbcut..."
Page 3, change "Jack" to John Thornborough. Change
paragraph to read "Mr. Thornborough wants rezoning to open an
artist studio and showroom at 138 North Main. Mr. Stansbury
stated that a work session is not rezoning..."
Citizens Comments: None 9/<, c
Old Business:
Roger L. Coombs, 218 East· Maple
The applicant stated that he would like to install a roof
over an existing concrete 12' x7' pad at the back of the house.
The pillars are to be like those on the front. Roofing materials
will be the same.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH STIPULATION
THAT THE MATERIALS BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE HOUSE.
MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Louise-M. Daniels, 125 East College Street
This application was tabled at the last meeting. Ms.
Daniels wishes to enclose the front porch with modern-looking
glass panels with horizontal dividers and storm door. The Windows.
will not match those of the house. She has provided to Ms.
Wimberger kneewall material and skirting for over the lattice
behind bushes. Frame is to be put on the outside attached at the
ends. The house across the street has an enclosed porch addition
more in keeping with style of the house.
Mr. Myers felt that the new siding should match and that· the
lattice should be of siding provided. rather than the sample material she He thought such a porch might work in the back. Mr. Salvage does not think this plastic material fits in the AROD. Mr. Stansbury said that under Section 1161 it is important that any renovations be compatible with surrounding area, and he does not think this goes with the house at all. This plan would be a disservice to the village and he does not see any way to salvage it. Mr. Wilkenfeld thought someone could come up with a better plan and provided Ms. Daniels with names. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.
MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED.
Mr. Stansbury added that whoever Ms. Daniels talked to about the plans needs to know that her application was rejected so she can get her fees back.
New Business:
Donald Contini, 431 East College Street
Mr. Contini is requesting a variance of 12" for a projecting sign for his nonconforming business. In November 1996 he received
approval for a sign, but the sign was never installed.
The timeframe has expired, so this is a new application. He
brought the sign in for GPC to look at, saying it is a name and
address ratiler than an advertising sign.
Ms. Wimberger stated that the bracket for the sign already
exists and originates from the wall of the building and could
therefore be considered a wall sign. A nonconforming use can only
have a wall sign. Since there was a sign there before and since
it is not in the middle of a residential area, it should be
allowable.
Mr. Stansbury stated that ordinarily we have to go through a
variance process, but the ordinance says that we can approve it
without a variance if we wish. Since we like the sign, it should
be approved. 146- h r
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR THE S IGNAE#9 -C· 44
PRESENTED TO THE GPC TONIGHT. GPC IS CONTROLLING AUTHORITY'««) , 1189. 05( A) (2).MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS U.-or:*b
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 16'-0 .t>
William Hanes, 560 West Broadway
Mr. Hanes stated that he wants to build an addition which
would entail replace a 445 sq. ft. addition with a new addition
and a porch. He will match existing materials. Although this
falls within the TCOD 100' setback, the existing structure is
already within the setback and will not protrude farther than
existing portion of the house; most of the construction will be
in the side and rear yards.
Mr. Stansbury feels that in the TCOD as long as uniformity
2
3
is consistent, he sees no problem.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Dr. and Mrs. Lee Davis, 304 North Pearl Street
John Noblick, builder, to do explained that the applicant wishes off thea restoration and replace siding with redwood siding, take green natural roof and replace it with new real slate and gcaorpapgeer,, tear down a modern carport and add breezeway and twoc-ar build new stone chimney, replace existing side porch, and add new shutters and picket fence (within the ROW). They will
apply to BZBA for setback variances on the side.
Mr. Salvage does not object to putting a fence along the ROW, but really wants to see drawings. Maybe we can omit the fence from our approval now but sees no reason why they cannot get started on the house. Mr. Myers added tat the location of the fence in relation to sidewalk needs clarification.
Mr. Noblick will get a drawing to Ms. Wimberger of the fence before the next meeting. His surveyor is working on a survey, and Mthse. RWOiWm.berger will research legal aspects of putting a fencein
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION PROVIDED THAT THE
1) SETBACKS AS SHOWN ON DRAWING ARE APPROVED BY BZBA AND
2) FENCE PLAN WILL HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED TO US FOR FINAL
APPROVAL AT A LATER DATE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A UNDER OLD
BUSINESS (COOMBS) AND A,B, AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS
CONTINI, HANES, DAVIS) AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Adjournment: 9: 00 p. m.
Next Meetings: November 9 and 23
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 10/05/98

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 5, 1998
M.inut.ex
MWeimllibaemrs Present: Jack Burriss, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Wernet, Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Keith Myers
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon S( entinel)K, atherine Wirtz, Tony and Luann Barsotti, Joan Hepsworth, Carolyn Carter, Ken and Penny Richards, Trudy Knox, John Thornborough, Jim Harf
Minutes of September 14, again: Page 1, Shumway application, Ms. mWoimvebde. rger stated that three shrubs were removed, rather than
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Minutes of September 28 are not prepared yet.
Citizens Comments: None
New Business:
Luann and Anthony Barsotti, Jr.,344 East Maple Street
The applicant stated that two years ago he came in for a permit for vinyl siding but could not do it then; now he wants gray and white siding with slight texture to match existing siding. All other things remain the same. He would keep the fishscale siding.
Mr. Burriss asked about the porch pillars and was told they would be wrapped in aluminum and the capitals would go. The half columns against the house would be boxed also. Mr. Burriss
thought the columns complemented the fishscale and would hate to
see them go or to be boxed. It' s important to maintain the origi- nal integrity of the facade. Mr. Barsotti is willing to change
the design. There would be a gable vent in a diamond shape on both ends of house.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH AMENDMENTS:
1) COLUMNS OF PORCH NOT BE ENCLOSED; (2) TRIANGULAR VENT BE
COVERED IN APPROPRIATE SIDING MATERIAL; (3) FURTHER ADDITION
TO THE PROPOSAL, WE PROVIDE FOR ALLOWING A MEMBRANE ROOF,
BLACK IN COLOR, BE APPLIED TO THE ROOF OF THE PORCH. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Louise M. Daniels, 125 East College Street
Ms. Daniels would like to enclose the front porch with glass
and aluminum. The existing posts may or may not remain, depending
on their internal stability. The porch would have horizontal
sliding panels with screens covering half the window.
Mr. Stansbury asked whether the kneewall would remain and
she replied yes and it would be lower. There is a space between
the railing and the floor. Mr. Burris large picture window was concerned about the addition is balancing with the new porch windows. The to work more modern than the house but could be articulated their coanndditihoen.would like the pillars intact, but that depends on
Mr. Wernet was concerned about the lack of horizontal breaks Bonurtrhisesnew windows, which would enhance the appearance, and Mr. said other windows are doubleh-ung, and he would feel more comfortable witn the new windows broken up in some way. Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested horizontal siding. Mr. Salvage would like to see a sample of material, and Mr. Burriss wants the roof not to change and wants the shrubs to remain. He is not
comfortable with the modern appearance. Members wanted to see drawings further describing this plan and how it would fit in with the rest of the house. Ms. Wimberger will work with Ms. Daniels to come up with revised plans after the latter talks with her builder.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PENDING RECEIPT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
James Crates and Stephanie Gussler, 339 East Maple Street
The applicants wish to raise the roof over the rear of the house to utilize space above the kitchen and make less expanse of roof. It will be of barn siding and have one double-paned window. On the back they would have another window. The front
facade will be equal with the wall to the west.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Roger L. Coombs, 218 East Maple Street
Since the applicant was absent and members had questions:
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION; MR. BURRISS
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session
Joan Hepsworth, 1287 Cherry Valley Road
Mr. Stansbury recused himself from this work session}
Joan Hepsworth and Carolyn Carter wish to open a Massage
Therapy business, entitled New Day Spa. They need to add parking
space behind the building and would remove the garage door and
make outside facade look the same as the wall. The finish would
be painted with a texture to hide the cement block with vinyl
siding on the back. The front door would be flush. They would
remove trees and add shrubs. The existing second curbcut will be
for residences on either side.
2
Mr. Burriss asked applicants about sign location and lighting, and the want it as close to the road as possible. Ms. Htheepsirworth will approach Cherrry Valley Lodge about access to parking lot. Members would like to see photos. Mr.
Burriss wants to see the parking lot screened, and Ms. Hepsworth will screen it on the residential side.
Consensus liked the plan. The ditch might present a problem. Sidewalks need to be 6- wide but there is not enough space at this point. If Cherry Valley road is improved, the sidewalks would need to be installed by the owner. If there is btoe bceonannecatecdc.ess road in the back, this parking lot would need to
Members asked for information about the sign, its location, proposed screening to the north of parking lot, and photos.
Mr. Wernet appreciates the fact that applicants have looked watorkth. e ordinances and tried to come up with something that will
John Thornborough, SE Corner of Main and College Streets
Mr. Thornborough stated that he wants rezoning to open an artist studio and showroom at 138 North Main. Mr. Stansbury
stated that a work session is not appropriate for a rezoning and that a public hearing should be scheduled.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A AND B UNDER NEW
BUSINESS (CRATES, BARSOTTI) AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Adjournment: 9: 15 p. m.
Next Meetings: October 26 and November 9 and 23
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
3