Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 9/23/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 23, 2002
 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main,
Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl
Wilkenfeld
Members Absent:  None
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Bob Kent, Curt Shonk, Jeff McInturf,
Jeff Oster
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of August 12, 2002:  Minutes were postponed until
the next meeting.

New Business:

Bryn Du Woods, Phase V – Final Plat

    After briefly describing the history of the
subdivision, Mr. Dorman said tonight’s application is for
Phase V, 25 ½-acres, with lots 0.49 to l.2-acres. The road
is a northern extension of Glyn Tawel ending in a cul-de-
sac.  He summarized the circulated memo reporting on Mark
Zarbaugh’s (Service Director) comments on Phase V.  The
walkways, connectors, and paving details were described
and agreed upon.
    Bob Kent said this is not quite the final phase,
since there are 5 lots left.  Engineers have been looking
at the plans and there are no changes from the PUD
approval. He added that the retention pond will be
reconstructed somewhat, raising the rim so it can hold
more water.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-130 FOR FINAL
PLAT OF BRYN DU WOODS PHASE V, WITH THE FOLLOWING
AMENDMENTS:  1) THE PLAT SHOULD INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF A
SIDEWALK TO CONNECT THE GREENWAY WALKING PATHS AND THE
STRIPING TO CONNECT TEHM AS OUTLINED IN THE MEMO PROVIDED
BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER; AND 2) THAT FINAL ENGINEERING
DETAILS BE WORKED OUT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND VILLAGE’S
ENGINEERS.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jeff Oster, 1179 Cherry Valley Road –Change of Use/
Development Plan

Mr. Dorman said the applicant has recently purchased the
building next door to his store, and he is looking for
approval to convert this former residence into a medical
office.  There will be a handicapped entrance ramp and 11
new parking spaces in the lot behind the house.  He said
this is a change of use and a development plan.  As a PCD,
this will be decided upon as a recommendation to Village
Council.
Jeff Oster added that these plans reflect what was
discussed at the work session.  They intend to widen his
driveway and connect the two driveways.  There will be
plantings on the south side.  The air conditioner will be
in the back.  He thought there would be 25-30 patients per
day and two full-time staff people.  Hours of operation
will be 8:30 to 6 p.m., and there will be mercury oxide
lamp for the parking lot.  
Mr. Burriss asked about the sign and was told there should
be a relationship with the two signs. The applicant will
submit sign application later.
Mr. Wilkenfeld was told, in answer to his question, that
the dumpster will be an ordinary household can.
Mr. Parris stated they are not doing much outside the
building, but the doors should open out, and wants the
applicant to follow the codes.  If it becomes necessary to
modify the exterior of the building to build it up to
acceptable codes, would he have to bring those
modifications back here?  Mr. Salvage thought we could
give him the ability to change the building for
accessibility issues.  
Ms. Lucier asked about the concrete in the front and Mr.
Oster said this is for access to the garage, not parking,
and a portion will be removed and seeded.  She asked about
sidewalks and it was decided there would be none.      

MR. PARRIS MOVED FOR A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO
COUNCIL FOR APPLICATION #02-128 WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:  1) THAT THE APPLICANT’S PLANS WILL BE
MODIFIED TO CLOSE THE BREEZEWAY USING A SIDING MATERIAL
THAT MATCHES THE EXISTING STRUCTURE; 2) THAT THE APPLICANT
WILL BE ABLE TO MODIFY ANY EXISTING DOORS TO MEET FIRE AND
EGRESS CODE IF NECESSARY; 3) THAT THE APPLICANT WILL
REVIEW ANY PARKING LOT LIGHTING WITH THE VILLAGE PLANNER
PRIOR TO INSTALLATION; 4) THAT THE ISSUE OF WATER
RETENTION/ DETENTION RESULTING FROM THE INSTALLATION OF AN
ASPHALT PARKING LOT BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
VILLAGE ENGINEER’ 5) THAT ANY AIR CONDITIONER SHOULD BE
PLACED BEHIND THE BUILDING AND BE SCREENED; AND 6) THAT
THE APPLCIANT WILL SUBMIT A DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR
APPROVAL BY THE TREE & LANDSCAPE COMMISSION.  MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Work Session:

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road –
Site Plan Modifications

Jeff McInturf appreciated the opportunity to come back to
answer questions arising at the last meeting.  He and Mr.
Dorman talked with their engineer as well as the Village
engineer to determine what they want to see on parking in
the floodplain.   He described the traffic flow problems
at the church and why they need to revise their parking
arrangements and eliminate cross traffic.  
Mr. Dorman showed the 1991 preliminary approved plan for
Phase I.  In 1995 the school building was approved, and in
1997 the Village Planner and Joe Hickman approved the
excavation and grading.  GPC did not get involved.  Three
variances would be required:  size of sign, changeable
copy sign, and more than three colors.
Mr. McInturf said they have a net loss of several spaces
to reconfigure.  They want to add traffic islands and
striping.  The only lighting they have is insufficient and
they are trying to add 4 more lights with colonial
lampposts, which will go off at 11 p.m.  One existing
light will remain where it is; the other will be moved to
allow space for the parking lot.  He described their exact
locations
   
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT APPLICATION #02-119 IS A MINOR
MODIFICATION WITHOUT THE REAR PARKING LOT.  MS. LUCIER
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-119.  MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

    Mr. Parris was concerned about public disclosure,
but neighbors need not be notified for a work session.  He
wants to be sure this follows protocol.
    There was considerable discussion about the
appropriateness of changeable signs and whether the
applicant could adjust the plans to accommodate the code,
which specifies no changeable copy signs.  Mr. Parris
thought this should be examined with an eye to signs in
other institutional districts.  Ms. Lucier said it’s a
mistake to have a sign of this size with changeable copy.  
She thought sandwich boards could advertise special
events.  Mr. McInturf did not like the idea of sandwich
boards, preferring a more aesthetic sign.  He thought they
could reduce the sign to three colors.  Sometimes the
school hosts events by outside entities because they have
so much space.   The code, according to Mr. Salvage,
cites “per zoned lot” for determining signs, and there are
two uses on this lot.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld wondered why the church needed to
advertise events which could be learned about internally,
and he was told that drivers from all over the county see
the sign and participate in activities and sports.  Ms.
Lucier thought a sign with just the name of the church and
school should be sufficient.
    A sign placed closer to the building might be more
acceptable, as at the Welsh Hills School, and Mr. Burriss
thought the changeable copy part could be scaled down to
make it more subtle.  Mr. McInturf said they could
probably scale it down somewhat.
    It was decided that the sign design would be
reworked before the next meeting, making it smaller,
having only three colors. Mr. Main suggested getting
advice on readability and spelling from the sign maker.

Finding of Fact:   MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS
FOR A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM
CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS
OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 20,
2002.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Comments:  Regarding SuperAmerica at Village Council
last evening, Mr. Salvage reported that there was a
discussion about the fact that the traffic engineer told
Village Council something other than what he told us.  
Also, it is important when writing to Village Council that
GPC members get a copy.  For smooth functioning of the
board it is necessary to respect one another and maintain
open communications.

Adjournment:  9:40 P.M.
Next Meetings:     October 15, and 28, 2002.  
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 9/9/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 9, 2002
 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris
(Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair)
Members Absent: Jack Burriss, Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Dawn Powell, Barbara Hammond, Ted
Handel, Robert Kshywonis, Steve Mershon, Jim Crates, Jeff
McInturf, Leon Habegger, Ned Roberts, Walt Denny, Nadine
Robson, Dick Hedge, Neal & Sue Hartfield, Brenda Heisey,
Roger Kessler, Sue Zenko

Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of August 12, 2002:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Steve Mershon, 411 East College Street - Fence
    
Mr. Dorman said the applicant requests a 42” decorative
wrought iron fence, 10’ from the sidewalk at the vacant
lot next door to his house.  There will be no gate.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-111 AS
SUBMITTED.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dorothy & Deloris Collins, 347 East Maple Street – Carport
Enclosure

Mr. Dorman said they propose to enclose the carport and
add two double-hung windows and a pedestrian door.  It
will match the existing structure as closely as possible.  
It is certain to enhance the appearance of the house.  
Ned Roberts the enclosure will make the room airtight and
part of the building.  This is for one side only; the
other two sides are already enclosed.  The walls will be
unfinished stud walls.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-112 WITH THE
CONDITION THAT THE SIDING AND WINDOWS MATCH THE EXISTING
DWELLING AND THAT THE COLOR IS THE SAME.  MR. PARRIS
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dawn Powell, 113 North Prospect Street – Sign Redesign

    Mr. Dorman said the new owner of Pippin Hill is
requesting approval of a change for the projecting sign
already in place.  
Ms. Powell said the only change is the graphics; the
location and size will remain the same.  She said they
also wish to apply for a sidewalk sign with the same
design on it.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-113 WITH THE
ADDITION THAT THE IMAGE ON THE PROJECTING SIGN BE ALSO
INCLUDED ON THE SIDEWALK SIGN.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mindy and Bob Kshywonis, 232 North Granger Street – Garden
Shed

    Mr. Dorman said the application is to put in an
8’x12’ garden shed near the end of the property in a
planting bed approximately 8’ from property line.  This
will require variance approval for side yard setback.  It
will not be visible from the street.
Mr. Kshywonis stated that they can’t move it farther from
the setback minimum because of the lay of the land and the
grade.  The back of the shed would be 8’ from a 9’ tall
concrete wall and the other side of the wall is the
school.  He asked whether he could build a moveable shed,
and the answer was yes, but it is still a structure and
over 3’ tall so will need approval.  

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-117 WITH THE
RECOMMENDATION TO BZBA TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE.  MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James Crates, 339 East Maple Street - Fence

    The applicant wishes to replace the existing fence
with a 50” picket fence and Nantucket Arbor.
    Mr. Crates said this is his third fence
application.  This one will be behind the front porch.  
The back yard will not be changed, only the curbside.  
They will be in Nantucket and will check around to see how
the fence should look.  The standard is 4” or 6” white
pickets, thicker than traditional 1”x6” pickets.  The
neighbor agrees with the proposed fence.
    Mr. Parris asked whether he would get the Village
Planner’s approval for the color selected.
 
MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-118 WITH THE
PROVISION THAT THE APPLICANT CHECK WITH THE PLANNER BEFORE
HE APPLIES THE FINAL COLOR.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road –
Site Plan Modifications

    Mr. Dorman said the applicants wish to (1) widen
the entrance to improve traffic flow from the main road
for safety reasons; (2) grade and extend rear gravel
parking area and pave with asphalt to double amount of
parking area and reduce erosion; and (3) add lighting.  
Fourteen parking spaces will be moved a little farther
east.  A landscape plan would be applied for later.  
    Mr. Parris noted the PUD has already been approved
and wondered if it is exactly what was proposed several
years ago.  We are to consider a considerable increase in
parking areas.  Normally under a PUD in phases one has to
go with a plat.  Mr. Dorman said there was an overall
development plan approved, and he will attempt to locate
it.  
    Mr. Salvage said we are taking a two-acre parcel
and making it impervious, so there are drainage issues.  
He is not sure we have the proper information to act on
this tonight.  This is a PUD, which means there are
certain criteria we have to approve before we recommend
this to Village Council.  
Jeff McInturf thought the original PUD just called
for “future parking.”  In order to reduce erosion, they
want to grade around the lot this fall in preparation for
paving later on.  They want to move the soccer field to
the east.  The traffic flow would be much safer with the
improvements they are applying for and school busses could
move around easier. If they added 5’ on the side, they
could have a double exit in the front.   Mr. McInturf
thought this could be considered a minor modification, but
the Commission does not know what it would be a
modification for without seeing the original plat.  Since
we cannot add parking in the front, we have to put it in
the rear, but we will have to lose a few spaces. This
probably should be institutional zoning, not a PUD.  
Mr. Parris thought it would not be a problem as long as
the applicants did not expand the borders of the parking
lot, but this should probably be examined all at once, not
piecemeal with the traffic flow and lighting separate.
Mr. Salvage wanted the applicants to schedule a work
session, bringing in the original site plan with proposed
amendments, and he asked Mr. Dorman to search for the
plan.  A drainage study needs to be done.
Ms. Lucier does not feel comfortable with the new
lighting, and Mr. McInturf said a lot of people walk
around there at night and the lighting is insufficient.  
They want to add four lights and move the one in place
now.  Currently they have two double lights.  Ms. Lucier
said tripling the lighting does not seem to be minor.  Mr.
Dorman said on the site they are allowed up to 25 foot
candles, and the amount of existing light is minimal.
Having the applicants’ agreement:

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-119 PENDING THE
RECEIPT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road –
Freestanding Sign

    Mr. Dorman said they also want a new 8’x5’
externally lit sign in a stone wall with a fixed message
at the top and changeable area beneath.  The maximum is 18
sq.ft. requiring a variance.   The sign would be 4 colors,
which would require a variance from the maximum of 3.  
Although changeable signs are OK in the Village Square
District, such a sign in PUD would require variance here.
Mr. Parris said churches need to post upcoming events.  
Church signs downtown are bigger than the code allows, but
the Village Square would allow changeable signs.
Mr. Main stated that the new sign code was modified to
adjust to the size of the signs downtown.
Ms. Lucier thinks a changeable sign would be a mistake and
would prefer 3 colors to 4 colors.  She looked at church
signs and no changeable copy signs were in the outlying
churches and she thinks it’s a mistake to install one
here.  She would vote to table the application.
Mr. McInturf said the reason for changeable copy is for
the church and school to post all kinds of events, and
they need a bigger sign since cars drive past faster than
in the Village.
Mr. Salvage said only three colors are allowed, and they
are encouraged to go from 4 colors to 3.  He thinks the
size and the changeable sign is appropriate here, but we
don’t have enough votes to pass this tonight.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-120.  MS. LUCIER
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Neal and Sue Hartfield, 324 East Elm Street – Exterior
Modifications

The applicants wish to replace the side door with a French
door and replace several windows on the south with double-
hung windows.
Mr. Hartfield provided additional detail on the windows
and door.
 
MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-121 AS
SUBMITTED.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dan Bellman, 310 Summit Street – Air Conditioner

Mr. Bellman wishes to put the air conditioner in the
rear.  There is an existing bush which could be used for
screening.  Since it is less than 10’ from the property
line, ordinarily it would need a variance, but structures
under 3’ are excluded.  He talked to his neighbor and he
had no objections.  He would like the application in terms
of screening with the option to replace the bush.  

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-122 WITH THE
CONDITIONS THAT (1) THE EXISTING SHRUBS WILL SERVE AS
SCREENING FOR THE AIR CONDITIONER.  IF SCREENING IS
CHANGED, THE APPLICANT WILL CONSULT WITH THE PLANNER. (2)
THE UNIT WILL BE 3’ HIGH OR LESS.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Barbara Hammond, 123 East Broadway – Exterior Modifications

    Ms. Hammond is moving her furniture store into the
old Granville Electric and wishes to replace the two front
doors with an ADA compliant double-door entrance.  She
wants to remove the existing picture windows and replace
with aluminum storefront framing.  Transoms will be
darkened to block the view of the canopy framework.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-123 AS
SUBMITTED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Barbara Hammond, 123 East Broadway – Awning

    Ms. Hammond also wishes to replace the awning with
a black and copper one, 35’ long and 9.3’ tall with a
valance and sign on the extended awning.  The awning is to
be black and the sign (3.5 sq.ft.) in copper.  It would be
taller than the canopy next door.  Ted Handel explained
more details to the group.  

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-124 AS
SUBMITTED.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Brenda Heisey, 1007 Newark-Granville Road – Fence

    Ms. Heisey wishes to erect a 4’ wrought iron
fence, between the shed and primary structure. There will
be 70’ of fencing and two gates

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-125 AS
SUBMITTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Judy Guenther, 138 East Broadway – Awning/ Sidewalk Sign

    The proposal is to redesign the awning with new
lettering on the scalloped drop and to put out a sidewalk
sign.  The sandwich board will have the name Hare Hollow
at the top with cork section in the middle and a dry erase
section at bottom.
    Roger Kessler, sign maker, said just the lettering
will change, not the awning.  It will be the same size and
the same color.  Originally planned for 2.5’x4’, the
sandwich board size can be reduced to 2’x4’.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-126 WITH THE
CONDITION THAT THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK SIGN MEET THE CODE
REQUIREMENT OF 2’X4’ MAXIMUM. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:  

Granville Public Library - Addition

    Jack Hedge, Architect, and Library Board members
wished to update the GPC on their plans.  They have 13,000
sq.ft. now and wish to increase to 23,000 sq.ft. by
expanding to the rear.  To improve security they want to
open up the old front door and have meeting rooms just
inside with a lockable door dividing meeting space from
library space in order to enable groups to meet after
closing hours. The existing entry door will remain.  A
grand staircase is envisioned, covering all three floors.  
The structure will be 7’ from the property line.
The children’s section will be in the basement looking out
into a sunken garden
    The first floor would have audio-visual materials,
computers, magazines; the upper level would have reference
and teenage books.
Mr. Hedge showed slides of the exterior elevations.  
Parking and deliveries will be in the rear, where the Pyle
house is now and a 6’ wall will be built at the North
Prospect Street entrance.  Fencing will be installed as
buffers on the south side and on the north to screen the
post office.  They tried to limit the massing by adding a
hip roof and make it the same pitch as original building.
Little jutting-out sections will reduce massing. Air
conditioning units will be on the roof.  They will remove
stained glass windows and add skylights.
    Ms. Lucier regretted their having to remove two
houses.  She hates to give up houses for parking lots.  
She recommended that the group return when Jack Burris can
be present.
    Walt Denny wanted to be sure the Granville
Fellowship latitude to move the building or move out of
the building.  They have given the Fellowship until
September 1, 2002, to convey whether or not it is viable
for them to pursue that.  The library has no plans for the
Pyle House.  It will be either razed or sold and moved.  
If it does not sell, the library will ask for demolition
again.
    Mr. Parris wondered whether it wouldn’t be better
to have the service entrance on the west to ease delivery
of books.
    Mr. Salvage summed up: (1) You should make the
structure as attractive as possible.  (2) He does not have
a problem with the parking plan.  (3) Make good use of the
Sinnett House.
    Mr. Parris said they might have to break up the
back roof massing more.  The original structure is such a
wonderful building; he thinks they should continue some of
the old details into the new section.  The old building
should remain distinct.  He would be willing to violate
setbacks for a beautiful building.   

Finding of Fact:   MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS
FOR A,B,C,D,E,H,I,J,K,L,M UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND
THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE
AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 6,
2002.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Adjournment:  9:47 P.M.
Next Meetings:    September 23, and October 14, 2002.  
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 8/12/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 12, 2002
 Minutes

Members Present: Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair),
Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Barb Lucier, Jack Burriss
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  David Neel, Susan and Douglas Rockwell,
Laura Andujar
Citizens’ Comments:  None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of July 8, 2002: On Page 9, Line 11, after “per
day and was told,” add by the representative from
Speedway, at the end of the paragraph, and add an end
quote.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.  
MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Minutes of July 22, 2002:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Susan and Charles Rockwell, 129 West Broadway – Utility
Shed

    Mr. Dorman said the application is to install an
8’x 8’ x 7’ vinyl utility shed with a wood base, behind
the garage and at least 10’ from the west property line.
    Mr. Rockwell said it will be painted white, and it
will not be visible from the street.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-103 AS
SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

William Zink and Mary Van Paepechem, 425 Burg Street – Lot
Split

Mr. Dorman said the applicants propose to split 0.007 of
an acre at the rear of the property so the Goldblatts at
419 Burg Street could have a more functional lot.  No
variances would be required, and a survey has been
completed.  
David Neel said the Goldblatts acquired another portion of
this lot several years ago when another person owned it.  
Because of the steep terrain, it’s an unbuildable strip of
land.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-108 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.



Old Business:

The Broadway Deli, 126 East Broadway – Valance

    Mr. Dorman said last year the applicant came in
and received approval to paint the building and remove the
awning over the first floor window, as well as install
small awnings over each second story window.  Tonight the
applicant is requesting a modification to install a
valance on the outside of the first floor window.  The
valance would be similar to the awnings on the second
story with the same red and white stripe and scallop
pattern.  The applicant was not present tonight.  
    Mr. Salvage remembered that the Planning
Commission had suggested at the first hearing that the
applicant might want an awning over that window, but at
the time they did not want it.  Mr. Salvage sees no
problem with this request.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THIS IS A MINOR MODIFICATION TO
APPLICATION #01-123.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION
#01-123 AS PRESENTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Sessions:

Village of Granville - Village Hall Improvements

    Mr. Dorman reviewed that in 1999 or 2000 the
Village came through with improvements to Village Hall in
two phases.  Now both permits have expired and are void.  
Joe Hickman and Mr. Dorman tried to recreate a list of
things to be done, some of which require Planning
Commission approval and others do not.  Tonight Laura
Andujar, Architect, will talk about some of the things we
are looking at.  They were considering a fence on the roof
to screen the mechanicals.  
    Ms. Andujar showed the Commission the plans to
date, noting they will improve the drainage system.  They
are seeking a railing to give a new look to the entrance,
which would be subject to Planning Commission approval.  
Mr. Burriss had asked previously whether the awning should
be moved up above the transom.  There will be a new
entrance door and coach lights to either side of the
entrance.
    Mr. Parris thought they might order sidelights and
transom to match the door and it would go a long way to
warming that up.  They could put in a whole new unit with
wood frame.  They make composite frames now.  They might
continue the transom line across and divide it up evenly
between the windows.  If the opening were moved in a
little bit, there would be room for some nice trim inside
and out.  It might be important to see how wide the door
must be to accommodate wheelchairs.  
    The front door is the top priority, and then they
will consider changing the window appearance.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether the rail would be on
both sides of the ramp and was told yes.  Mr. Parris
thought they could put in a simple rail on the back and a
more attractive one on the front.  
 
Finding of Fact:   MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS
FOR A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Rockwell, Zink) AND ITEM A
UNDER OLD BUSINESS (The Broadway Deli),  AND WE FIND THEM
CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE
AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF AUGUST 9,
2002.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  8:05 P.M.
Next Meetings:    September 9, 2002.  AUGUST 26 MEETING IS
CANCELLED.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 7/22/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22 2002
 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Matt McGowan
(substituting for Richard Main), Mark Parris (Vice Chair),
Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Barb Lucier
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Jim Hartzler, Maxine Montgomery,  
Jonathan WocHer, Connie Westbrook, Jerry Gray, Jeff Oster,
Miles Waggoner, John Stephens, Jeffrey L. Brown, Rose
Wingert, Margaret Clayton, Judy Duncan, Jerry Griffin,
Judith Thomas
Citizens’ Comments:  None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of July 8, 2002:  Postponed until the next meeting

New Business:

Jim Hartzler, 203 North Plum Street  – Remove (2) Non-
Historic Windows

    Mr. Dorman said the application is to remove two
small horizontal windows installed in the 50s or 60s.
    Mr. Hartzler apologized for trying to put this
through as an amendment to his previous application.  The
two windows of concern have no historical value, and he
wants to restore the appearance to its former time
period.  They will restore siding to match as closely as
possible.  
    Mr. Parris reminded him that in the future if you
have several things to do on the house, we would not have
a problem with putting them in as a package.  But this
improvement had nothing to do with the retaining wall.  
Mr. Hartzler said he appreciated that, and as he gets into
renovating things he will be mindful of that.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-097 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Corna Kokosing, 102 East Broadway – Temporary Contractor’s
Signs.

    Mr. Dorman said the contractors have put up two 32
square feet signs about 15’ from Broadway at the Methodist
Church.  This will require variances for (1) number of
signs, (2) size of signs; Mr. Parris thought we could
justify a variance based on other projects around town;
and (3) location in relation to the ROW; the code
says, “unless there is no land between façade and ROW.”
    Jerry Gray, Superintendent, did not know there
were regulations about temporary signs when they installed
them on the fence around the project. The signs would be
in place during the construction, which will last 9-10
months.
Mr. Salvage asked whether they could live with one sign
and the answer was Yes.  Mr. Gray would keep the one at
the main entrance to the church.
Mr. Parris applied the criteria to the requested variances
for size and location:

A.That special circumstances or conditions exist which are
peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which
are not applicable to other lands or structures in the
same zoning district.  N/A
    B. That 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.  
We have granted larger signs for other construction
projects in institutional districts.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. N/A
D.That the granting 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.  It’s just the opposite.  If we do not grant the
variance, we would be denying them what others have.
    E.  That the granting of the variance will in no
other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and
general welfare of the of persons residing or working
within the vicinity of the proposed variance.  No, it
would not.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR ONE SIGN
BASED ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE
(1147.03), SPECIFICALLY (B), (D), AND (E) ABOVE.  MR.
BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-100 AS
AMENDED TO APPROVE ONE SIGN LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER THE BARRICADE.  MR.BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Centenary Methodist Church, 102 East Broadway –Temporary
Sign

During renovation church services will need to be at a
different location and the sign will direct worshippers to
Burke Hall. The sign is 34.5 square feet versus code
maximum of 12 square feet.
Miles Waggoner expressed apologies for putting up the sign
without approval.  They had an interest in installing the
sign to advise the public of where they are worshipping.  
This temporary sign will be in place until September 8th.  
Mr. Parris thought it was big and unfortunately it went up
before approval at which time it could have been scaled
down.  But based on the short time of service, he is not
too worried about it. To answer a question from Mr.
Burris, Mr. Waggoner thought another sign would not be
necessary in the future.
Mr. Wilkenfeld thought if the sign were not already up, he
would feel differently; however. it is not garish, it is
low key, it’s for an institution of the Village, and we
have granted other such signs.  This would not set a
precedent.
Because of 1189.09, Mr. Salvage did not think a variance
is required.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-101 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Speedway/SuperAmerica, SR 16 at Cherry Valley Road –
Proposed Gas Station

    Mr. Dorman introduced the continuation of
discussion by saying the applicant has submitted a new
site plan showing changes to Cherry Valley Road (CVR) and
a drawing showing the proposed screening for outdoor
storage.
    Jonathan Wocher said there would be a wall
extending north of dumpster. This would not require a
variance.  The site plan now shows a right turn extending
the full length of CVR to SuperAmerica (SA) Way. The ROW
dedication provides a 6-lane potential.
    Mr. Burriss stated that he would hate to plant a
row of trees for safety and get them going and then remove
them.  Mr. Wocher does not want to do that either.
    Mr. Burriss asked how high the enclosure around
the dumpster was and was told it it would be above the ice
machine.  

Build-to Line.  This is OK

Dedicated Space.  All lots except 1,2, and 3, and SA Way
will be dedicated.  Mr. Salvage said the old map shows 17
acres, and this is about 12 acres of dedicated land for
the Licking Land Trust or to the Village.  Speedway was
not sure of the total acreage of their holdings but
assured everything beyond the 3 lots and the road would be
dedicated for open space.

Outdoor Storage.  Mr. Wilkenfeld reminded the group that
outdoor storage and display of merchandise in sidewalks or
plaza areas shall be prohibited.  We don’t have authority
to approve ice machines and other things.  Mr. Parris
reminded the group that the IGA has 4 coke machines
outside.  If we decide they can’t have outdoor storage,
other businesses in town will be impacted.  If we are to
have it at all, Mr. Burriss wants it screened. He would be
in favor of screening and no other merchandise added.  The
minute soda pop shows up, there would be a problem. Ice
could be stored inside, but propane should be outside. Mr.
Dorman reminded the group that under B, 1-8 in Section C
these are concerns.  Table B is guidelines; 1-8 are
considerations.  Screening is required.

Elevation.  Mr. Burriss asked about the correct position
and was told the one presented tonight was the accurate
one.  Front elevation will be reversed.  There are no
doors on the sides.    Jeff Brown asked about the 1 ½
story requirement and 1 story was agreed on.

Hours of Operation.  Consensus agreed to 18 hours as the
code specifies.  Jeff Brown said try to take into
consideration the location, not downtown but along a
highway with a lot of traffic 24 hours a day.  With
everything they are putting into this site, they need
those additional hours to pay for the site.

Right Out lane.  Mr. Wocher explained the 24-hour traffic
count taken on October 17, 2001, on the last page of the
study.  Right out will be eliminated.

Number of Pumps.  Mr. Wilkenfeld was curious that they
went from 10 to 12 pumps and the building space went from
2,000 to 3,800 square feet, and Mr. Wocher said every 5-6
years they update their standard site and building based
on demand, and a lot of the planning depends on lot size.  

Other Two Lots.  Mr. Wocher does not know who will use the
2 lots, but typically they have been restaurants and
hotels.   Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that a drive-through
generates more traffic than a sit-down. Mr. Wocher said
anyone would have to go through you for approval.   A
certain amount of additional ROW on CVR must be dedicated
for expansion.  Any landscaping trees along CVR would be
located such that future expansion of CVR to 6 lanes would
not require relocation of the trees and would not be
likely to harm them.  The applicant will work out final
details with the Tree & Landscape Commission.

Signage.   Mr. Wocher wanted assurance that the 32’
freestanding sign will be externally lit, and the S sign
above the door will be internally lit.   Mr. Dorman said
the code specifies 18 square feet, but the freestanding
sign is 32 square feet.   Jeff Brown said the freestanding
sign is the same as Certified’s, and Matt McGowan said Bob
Evans took one sign down.  Mr. Wocher stated because of
the location of the sign and the ROW, these factors can be
looked at as a non-typical situation.  Mr. Salvage thinks
it is OK.  Mr. Burriss thought the Certified sign fulfills
the goals we are looking for.  We could compromise on the
sign over the door and the loss of the other sign.  By a 3-
1 majority, the 32 square feet sign may remain.  The S
sign over the door may be internally lit.

Purpose and Intent.     Mr. Wilkenfeld is concerned about
the overall impact of this application.   He attended a
meeting with Joe Hickman and the Law Director and
discussed this and what we are charged with.  The Law
Director said we have to act in a way that is in the best
interest of the community.  Taking into consideration the
far-reaching traffic problems, the Master Plan, citizens’
interest and the site plan, we need to broaden the scope
of our discussion.  There are a lot of good things here,
and they are doing their job.    But the traffic issue
will turn into a fiasco at this corner, with traffic
backed up, cars coming from Park Trails, the closing of
River Road, and putting a greater burden on Newark-
Granville Road when people avoid the waiting at the red
light.   We should put in an overpass. Mr. Clear said that
could be 10 or more years in the future, so let’s start
considering these things now.   The squeaky wheel gets the
grease.
    Mr. Salvage thought we couldn’t hold this
applicant responsible for conditions that exist in our
community.  Under the code we don’t have the right to
request improving those conditions.  The code states
simply that the applicant can do nothing to exacerbate the
situation.  Our traffic engineer said Speedway will make
it no worse than it is today.  It would be bad to set his
conclusions aside and act outside of them.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld respects that, but we are charged
with taking care of the community first.  It’s unfortunate
that traffic is the way it is.  Mr. Crites had said we can
individually make a choice to accept or not accept the
traffic studies.  I choose not to accept them.  Some
things in his study are cautionary.

Site Plan. Mr. Burriss wanted it publicly noted that
anything we have asked for architecturally, Speedway has
come forth with, regarding floor plan, square footage,
details, and materials and veered from their standard
issue building plans

Closing Comments and Vote.  Mr. Wilkenfeld requested
submitting a dissenting opinion.   Mr. Burriss suggested
voting on the project and then voting on the Finding of
Fact.  He commends Richard for the time and effort he put
into it the drafting of the Finding of Fact.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO VILLAGE COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF APPLICATION #02-081 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  
{Please refer to Memorandum to Granville Village
Council,2/22/02, with attached Exhibit A, for details}  
MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS A TIE:  MR.
SALVAGE AND MR. PARRIS VOTING YEA AND MR. WILKENFELD AND
MR. BURRISS VOTING NAE.  (One member was absent.)

    Mr. Salvage stated that by a vote of 2 to 2 with
one member absent, the GPC makes no recommendation on the
approval of Application #02-081.  All we can do is submit
the facts.  Mr. Wilkenfeld was discouraged in submitting a
dissenting opinion, especially about the traffic and the
Purpose and Intent.  We could say “We would consider it,
but we were divided.  We discussed the evidence.”  He
feels Mr. Clear backpedaled the traffic study, and Mr.
Wilkenfeld discounted what Speedway said in the traffic
study.   

Work Sessions:

Centenary Methodist Church – Screening

    The Tree and Landscape Commission had requested
the screening of the dumpster in the parking lot as per
the code requirements, which has not been done.  The other
issue is the requirement to screen the parking lot from
Main Street.  There is little room there.  Miles Waggoner
stated that following the Planning Commission approval,
Mr. Dorman said we need to address the issue of dumpster
and parking lot screening. His concern is that currently
the parking lot goes right up to the sidewalk and
screening would take out some parking.  Along Main Street
they provide space but that is more to allow access to the
parking lot.  He does not think there is any room for
planting.  Handicap spaces would be removed.  He would
like to not put any planting on Main Street, except for
the trees already there.
    Regarding the dumpster, they really need storage
for the lawnmower and snow blower.  He is concerned about
people passing by in this public lot and tossing things
over the buffer.  The only way to protect it is to
entirely enclose it.  They could put in a permanent
foundation and a small building to enclose all trash in
containers and yard equipment.
Mr. Salvage does not want to remove parking spaces. He
thought variances would be needed for the north setback.
Mr. Wilkenfeld would have a concern about the building.  
And if they do not add a building, the screening should be
concrete blocks.  He suggested talking with the neighbors.
Mr. Burriss thought it should be a two-room building and
has no problem with a building.  He wants to think more
about screening the parking lot. He would applaud an
island with trees.
Mr. Parris would be more comfortable with something
reflecting materials on the building itself rather than a
pre-fab.

Jeff Oster, 1179 Cherry Valley Road – Change of Use.

    Mr. Oster wants to buy the house next door for
office space and would need 8 parking spaces.  Discussion
arose about the location of parking and handicap access
into the house. He would add a ramp. Regarding a joint
driveway, the problem would rest with future owners.

Finding of Fact: FOR SPEEDWAY, PLEASE SEE SEPARATE
FINDINGS APPROVED TONIGHT.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A, B, AND C UNDER
NEW BUSINESS (Hartzler, Kokosing, Methodist Church) AND
ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS Speedway), AND MEMO TO VILLAGE
COUNCIL, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT
SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE
PLANNER’S MEMO OF JULY 19th .  BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  11:00 p.m..
Next Meetings:    August 12 and August 26

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 7/8/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 8, 2002
 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris
(Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld,
Richard Main
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Todd Wrobleski, Maxine Montgomery,  
Jerry Siper, Mary Lou VanAtta, Emma-Lou VanAtta, Bob
Searles, Steve Mansfield,  Mike Flood, Constance Barsky,
Judy Duncan, Larry Morgan, Jeff Brown, John Klein,
Jonathan Wocher, Jack Gehrum, Larry Miller, Art Chonko
Citizens’ Comments:  None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of June 24, 2002:  Mr. Salvage wished to make
changes on Page 4:  Add the following in front of  End
Citizens Comments with: Mr. Salvage asked for additional
citizen comments and pointed out that this is the only
opportunity for such.  However, no further comments were
made and Mr. Salvage ended them.
    On Page 6, add at top of page:  Mr. Salvage
pointed out that under section 1171.03(b) square footage
is limited to 6000 per tenant or use and that this
applicant has two uses and therefore is allowed 12,000
square feet, making the proposal acceptable under the
code, in his opinion.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.  
MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

    Mr. Wilkenfeld said that since we are a body that
makes recommendations, it seems it might be good to get a
word-for-word transcript of the SuperAmerica part of the
minutes and attach it to the minutes.   Mr. Salvage would
just as soon leave it up to Village Council.  Mr. Parris
said the information is there if they feel it is a
necessity.  

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT WHEN WE SEND OUR RECOMMENDATION
TO VILLAGE COUNCIL, WE SHOULD INCLUDE A WRITTEN FORM OF
THE MINUTES FROM THE TAPES. THEN THEY CAN MAKE THE
DECISION WHETHER THEY WANT TO READ IT. MS. LUCIER
SECONDED  

    Mr. Salvage wanted to table this issue pending
cost estimates from Mr. Dorman.  MR. BURRIS MOVED TO TABLE
THIS ISSUE TO FIND OUT THE COST.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Granville Village Schools, 310 North Granger Street –
Replace all windows, remove all mechanical louvers.

    Mr. Dorman said the application is in conjunction
with interior modifications planned for the school.  They
want to (1) Replace all the exterior windows, and (2)
remove all existing mechanical louvers and infill those
areas with masonry.
    Todd Wrobleski said they want to bring the
building back to its historic nature.  The windows would
be double hung, the top part is fixed glass and the bottom
is flexible.  On the inside they are going to drop the
ceilings to hide the new mechanicals that is the reason
for the paneling on the new windows.  A lot of the
existing windows have glass and are painted in.   
    Mr. Parris said from a functional standpoint will
the double-hung windows have spring-loaded mechanical
balances, and he wondered why they would not use an awning
unit.  The response was for cost and safety reasons with
projecting windows.  The finish is metal with color
similar to building.  

    MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-
082 AS PRESENTED  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Larry Morgan, 343 East Broadway – Front Porch Renovation

    Mr. Dorman said the application is to: (1) replace
the 3 posts with similar posts;  (2) replace floor; and
(3) rebuild lattice understructure including the access
door to an old coal bin.
    Larry Morgan said the 100-year-old porch takes
abuse from the weather and has deteriorated and he wants
to replace the flooring with geodeck, a recycled material
and would use either a dark grey or light brown flooring.  
He wants to square up the posts. The pressure-treated
posts would have a routed reveal.  The existing railing
will hold up for awhile yet.  
    In answer to a question from Mr. Burriss, Mr.
Morgan said the deck material would be run the same way as
the existing but is a little higher, just below the
threshold.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-091, AND THE
APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE DARK GRAY OR
LIGHT BROWN MATERIAL OF THE TYPE HE BROUGHT IN AS THE
SAMPLE.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Lee & Linda Davis, 304 North Pearl Street - Driveway
Widening & Brick Sidewalks

    (A) Work has been done on the driveway, and at the
last meeting the applicant was asked to bring in a new
application.  They have widened the driveway 4.5 to the
east and 1.5 to the west and installed brick pavers on an
aggregate base where the original drive was concrete. This
will require BZBA approval for a lot coverage variance.  
Mr. Burriss said the work done heretofore has been done
well.
(B) They also wish to remove the aging sidewalk and
replace it with brick pavers.  These are Village
sidewalks.  Mike Flood, contractor, said they would be
receptive to what the Village has done downtown.
    Ms. Lucier asked whether pavers negatively impact
the ability of handicap access?  Mike Flood did not know,
but they could leave the ramp concrete.  Ms. Lucier
thought we ought to know for sure before granting
applications.     
Mr. Parris said we need to be sensitive to Village
improvements, and if there is a pattern we should follow
it.  Since these are Village sidewalks, (a) have we let
other people do sidewalk work?  (b) Once built, whose
responsibility is it to maintain it?  This is the first
time anyone has asked for approval to tear up Village
sidewalks. Mr. Dorman is only aware of older brick
sidewalks, and no owner has done anything, to his
knowledge, but he can research the question.  Joe Hickman
had asked the applicant to come before the PC.  Mr.
Salvage asked what are the specifications for sidewalks?   
A letter from neighbor Dan Bellman expresses his approval
of the project.

(A) MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM A OF APPLICATION #02-
092 AS PRESENTED, PENDING APPROVAL OF LOT COVERAGE
VARIANCE BY BZBA.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
(B)MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE PART B OF APPLICATION #02-092
AT THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Denison University, 459 South Main St. – Relocate Habitat
for Humanity Recycling Barn

    Art Chonko said the college wants to help the
community by allowing the recycling barn for aluminum cans
at the steam plant. It seemed a convenient place for it,
rather than behind the Episcopal Church.  There would be
little visual impact.  This is for Habitat for Humanity
and not related to the recycling bins on River Road.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld said that because it is in the
TCOD, we have to agree this is not really a building for
doing business, Mr. Salvage said it’s an accessory
building.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-093 AS
PRESENTED.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Denison University – New Campus Map and Temporary Signage

    Art Chonko said they are requesting one-sided
campus map signs at (1) Burke Hall, (2)  Washington
Drive/Lamson Lodge, and (3) the entrance from College
Street.  They will be internally lit.   Variances would be
needed for internal illumination and size.

The map would be grey aluminum with red letters.  Ms.
Lucier would not have a problem with the Burke Hall sign
because it’s already there and already internally lit.  
Ms. Lucier has a problem with the College Street sign
because she did not think there are many pedestrians who
are starting at the bottom of the hill at night.  It does
not look good next to the nice entrance to the college.    
Mr. Parris agreed and said if someone were in a car, the
headlights would light it up.  Mr. Chonko did not know the
foot candles since this is conceptual, but it needs enough
light to be visible.  He thought it would not be a glaring
light.  He added there will be more signs in the parking
lots.
    Consensus was to deny the entrance sign at the
Main/College Street entrance, and Mr. Chonko said he will
withdraw it from the application.  
Mr. Salvage applied the criteria to the requested
variances for internal illumination and size:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which
are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and
which are not applicable to other lands or structures in
the same zoning district.  Denison itself is a condition
that is peculiar in terms of the size, of the institution
and the amount of access it has to the Village; the
signage is actually very minimal when taken in context.
    B. That 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.  
Not applicable.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. They do, but
it’s required to adequately represent the University.  
Also part of the square footage that we’re dealing with is
architectural presentation of the map.
D. That the granting 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.  That can’t happen.
    E.  That the granting of the variance will in no
other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and
general welfare of the of persons residing or working
within the vicinity of the proposed variance.  No, it
helps them find where they are going on campus.

Mr. Salvage stated that after reviewing 1171.01 we feel
that approval of the variances to grant the application is
in order.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT UPON REVIEWING THE VARIANCES FOR
THE CAMPUS MAP SIGNAGE, TWO OUT OF THE THREE PROPSED SIGNS
SPECIFICALLY AT BURKE HALL AND AT THE INTERSECTION NEAR
LAMSON LODGE/MITCHELL CENTER MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
VARIATION.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-094 (PART
A) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT WE ARE ONLY
APPROVING THE PROPOSED SIGNS AT BURKE HALL AND AT THE
INTERSECTION NEAR LAMSON LODGE/MITCHELL CENTER.  MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Then there was a sort discussion on the proposed temporary
sing to direct summer conference attendees away from the
Main/College Street entrance to avoid the construction

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT APPROVE APPLICATION #02-094
(PART B) FOR THE TEMPORARY SIGN AS PRESENTED.  MR. PARRIS
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.


Christopher Avery, 127 South Prospect Street – Front Porch
Renovation

    Mr. Dorman came across this project already
underway and requested the applicant file an application.
Applicant wants to (1) replace posts, (2) install new
floor, (3) repaint railings, (4) replace lattice around
base, and (5) replace entrance walk on the house side of
the sidewalk.   The post snapped, the floor is collapsing,
and the roof is sagging.  The balcony part is not being
renovated at this time.  
    Dr. Avery said  the deteriorating  condition made
renovations crucial for safety reasons.  One part of the
renovation uncovered another, and the project grew.  It
will match the existing materials and colors as closely as
possible.  

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-095 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Eloise Miller, 590 West Broadway – Fence Extension into
TCOD

    Mr. Dorman said Ms. Miller extended a portion of
the 5’ tall blue-green wooden fence he approved last year
into the TCOD.  Mr. Dorman said the fence is 93½’ from the
center of road, which puts it 36½’ into the TCOD.  From
fence to the front of the house is 38’, and from the front
of the house to the sidewalk is 30’.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld noted this house has been there a
long time and this is part of the back yard and  does not
impinge on the view.  The purpose of the TCOD is not to
turn things into a mining town and put things right at the
roadside.
    Mr. Parris asked whether this is a modification
and was told yes.  But he would have been more comfortable
if this had been a new application, since it’s in a
different zoning area.  Mr. Salvage wondered whether we
would have approved it if it had been in the TCOD
originally.  It’s minor under the circumstances.  

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION
#01-106 AND FIND IT TO BE MINOR.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jim Hartzler, 203 North Plum Street – Removal of Two
Windows

    Mr. Dorman said the PC approved an application for
a retaining wall a month or so ago, and this is an
amendment for the removal of two non-historic windows.  
The siding will match.
    Mr. Parris said we did not even talk about the
house during the former discussion.  Mr. Dorman thought it
was minor enough that we could add this to the original
application, but Mr. Parris said the last time he wanted a
retaining wall, but this is a completely separate issue.  
Mr. Salvage did not think he would have trouble getting
approval with proper application.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO CONSIDER THIS A MINOR MODIFICATION.  
MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
DENIED.

Speedway/SuperAmerica, SR 16/S.CherryValley Rd. – Proposed
Gas Station

    This is the second formal hearing for the proposed
gas station and convenience store, which was tabled at the
last meeting.  {It was requested that this be a word-for-
word transcription, so the secretary has done this in a
separate file.}

MS. LUCIER MOVED THAT WE REMOVE APPLICATION #02-081 FROM
THE TABLE.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Salvage requested the Planner to provide an update,
and Mr. Dorman referred them to the cover memo and the
applicant.

Jonathan Wocher, Planner said he would like to cover a
couple of items newly submitted and then get to the issue
of traffic.  Greg Dale briefed him on the issues addressed
at the last meeting.  The revised plans include utility
plans, dumpster, landscaping.  Aerial views of the site
provide context of the Speedway with respect to the flood
plain.  We also submitted materials relative to
containment issues, catch basins, and financial
responsibility for underground tanks. Mr. Wocher wanted to
focus on traffic issues so he introduced Jack Gehrum,
Traffic Consultant, who oversaw the traffic study.  He
will address basic assumptions for the traffic study and
what Speedway feels would be improvements in the traffic.
Jack Gehrum said in December, 2001, his firm completed a
draft traffic impact study basically for a Speedway
facility with 12 pumps, and convenience store totaling
7800 square feet at the intersection of SR 16 and S.
Cherry Valley Road {CVR}. The traffic counts showed {CVR)
has 14,250 vehicles per day and there are 37,000 on SR 16
and some significant traffic delays under existing
conditions.  Looking to see what the problems were, they
studied trip generation and distribution for the
facility.  For the trip generation, the basis is a
collection of counts across the country, land uses, and
traffic studies, to allow consistency between
communities.   For this facility in the morning peak,
there were 60 in and 60 out, evening peak 80 in and 80
out.  Those trips vary in their consistency because we are
dealing with suburban locations, and there are a lot of
pass-by trips.  Pass-by trips are trips that are already
on the road, diverted to the gas station.  About 2/3 of
the gas station trips would be diverted traffic.  One-
third are trips primarily to the gas station.  Mr. Gehrum
said at the major intersection we are already at a
significant level and we are not going to increase that.
We are looking at a single use on the property.  Ms.
Lucier and Mr. Wilkenfeld disagreed.
    Mr. Gehrum’s recommendations include constructing
a left-hand lane for SuperAmerica (SA). I suggest we add a
lane and change the current through lane on SR 16 to a
through right turn lane, to have dual right turns and move
more vehicles through the intersection.  
    Another issue had to do with whether additional
Right-of-Way {ROW} was needed on CVR in front of the
facility or whether the roadway was limited to a 5 lane
section.  There is a partial ROW and it would provide
means to widen CVR as the area becomes developed.  
    Ms. Lucier asked how much difference does it make
whether you have 8 or 12 fueling stations?  Mr. Gehrum
said if you look at the figure there is an average per
fueling position around the country and he clarified the
data in the report.  They converted your trip generation
into average fueling position, so the equation says per
fueling position you have X number of trips and you can
use that according to the number of fueling positions.  
Ms. Lucier asked if fewer pumps would help, and was told
with fewer pumps you would have fewer cars.  If you have a
demand and not enough pumps, you would have a lot of
people waiting around.  
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked Mr. Gehrum to shed light on the 11
studies and where these studies took place; in the city,
country or suburban areas, and was told that this
information is standardized and that is what we use.
Mr. Burriss asked:  Is your recommendation that SA Way be
three lanes?  He was told that is correct.  Mr. Salvage
asked what impact would it have if the right out were
removed one and was told part of that is marketing and
access rather than actual need.   
Mr. Parris is concerned because of the congestion of the
area along to the close proximity of the Speedway with
people crossing the traffic pattern.  Right in right out
is no problem, but with people going left in or left out,
people are going to close their eyes and pray.  
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked for clarification on Page 13, the
level of service and classifying things A-F and delays,
and can you relate it to the studies we are looking at
here?  Page 14 looks at all these terms and they are all
at a level in our study that the volume exceeds capacity
and where does it say how we get to acceptable levels of
capacity?  You are saying there is no capacity for any
more volume. Mr. Gehrum said they did not analyze this
because it is an existing problem.  We don’t see what will
happen in the future, but Mr. Wilkenfeld said we have to
take into account a problem that already exists.  How can
we be expected to absorb more capacity?  Mr. Gehrum’s
group doesn’t examine the roadway to see what ODOT is
doing.  They are studying the impact of this station.  How
much worse will it be than what’s already there? He said
how do you stop traffic from continuing on a public
highway?   On SR 16 the backups are tremendous.
    Ms. Lucier said one of the things we look at is
does this proposal exacerbate the traffic problem?   
    Mr. Wilkenfeld thinks we have some real safety
issues and has a question about not just this study but
studies in general.   How do you address people in the
left traveling lane when they decide to get into the right
lane?  It slows everybody down. Are you taking into
account the actual flow:  Mr. Brown said you can’t figure
a crazy person into the analysis.  That would apply to
anywhere with more than two lanes.  You can’t design
something for a person being irresponsible that close to
the intersection.  Mr. Salvage said these are questions
that can’t be answered.    Ms. Lucier asked if we have a
traffic consultant present?
Doyle Clear, Traffic Engineer, said. {summarized
here}, “Most of the time the subject of traffic impact is
dealt with at the zoning level, not at the site planning
level.  I looked at it as a permitted use and instead of
looking at a traffic study I approached this more as a
site access system to see if it works.  I have worked with
Jack Gehrum and one of their problems is you don’t have
any guidelines on how to do traffic studies.  I asked Seth
what did you ask them to do, and  I think PKG did their
best in answering how to do it.  They are not to go beyond
what they think is in the best interests of their study.  
You might think about adopting guidelines used by most
cities.  Two major problems exist:
(1)We are dealing with a roadway system  which we are
going to rebuild some part of on the south part of CVR.  
My contention is that since they own the other two
parcels, the study should have considered land uses on the
other two parcels of land.  When McDonalds comes in, you
wouldn’t want to tear up what you’ve just built.  So my
suggestion was to ask them to look at the study
considering the other two lots being developed, i.e., fast
food and a high turnover sit down restaurant.   Capacity
ratios are where volume equals capacity. In the guidelines
it will be responsibility of developer to mitigate the
traffic increase.    So (1) They did not take into
consideration the other parcels. And  (2)They didn’t
mitigate their impacts.  Seth wrote to them and we got no
response so I was asked to take another look at it from a
traffic standpoint.  I am also working with Joe and Seth
on the north section of CVR.  We are looking at what are
the kinds of things we need to do on the north side?  They
are under design now on the north.  One of the things Jack
was trying to explain was diverted trips.  I agree with
Jack this will generate very few new trips.  The
development will take traffic from the road.  But what
happens with the exception of how to balance right in and
right out with the person who is coming east, right in,
left out, that was a through trip and added traffic.   If
I am going north, I have to turn left, make a loop.  The
most devastating is left in left out.  Those trips are
moments for significant impact. So what happens now since
this is a permitted use and previously approved?  What is
it we can do to make the system work better and mitigate
the impact?  So to mitigate the impact, what needs to be
done is to modify the north and widen the south side. My
suggestion to Seth was perhaps since the village is doing
the north leg we might work with ODOT on adding a second
north turn lane to SA Way from CVR.  During a.m. and
p.m.peaks, 13 cars would want to make a left turn.  If all
13 of them use it, it will block traffic, so my objective
was to put them into two lanes.   My suggestion was to ask
for more ROW.  I did not move anything but the objective
is to get the sidewalks within the ROW and the roadway
along ROW.  Then we add a second northbound left turn
lane.  We need to make arrangements for space for
queueing.  Get ODOT to help.  And make improvements to get
back to the bad level we had before.  If we dealt only
with Speedway, then the 5-lane section is appropriate.  
When you start adding the other two parcels, these three
generate 400 vehicles in there in the morning and 430 in
the evening.  If you think these are going to come on
line, then move the curb and gutter all at the same time.  
The traffic engineer was told to make the intersection
safer so they take green time away from the side streets.  
They did not do that.  So everyone had an equal time of
delay.  This is an Achilles heel on SR 16 and we don’t
want to get pinched on the north and south.
Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that the report on Page 7:promises SR
16 will continue to experience problems. On Page 11, you
say:  “Rather than adding through lanes, the State will
probably opt to construct an interchange in the vicinity
of CVR.; however, it is understood that such a
modification is at least ten years in the future.”  He
added that a memo from Joe Hickman to Seth Dorman
regarding Council’s direction reads:  “…any entities
developing along CVR must live within the confinements of
the existing five lane intersection.”

Chairman Salvage asked for Citizens’ Comments

STEVE MANSFIELD was one of the citizens who voted against
the previous application in ’97 and that referendum
proposal was defeated and the newspaper said it was
defeated by 63% voting against it.  I felt my views were
an expression of the Comprehensive Master Plan and some of
the zoning code developments at that time.  Other
comments: <> Number of pumps; It’s hard to find any
station with 12 pumps.  They usually have 6 islands,.and
he thinks this out of character for Granville. <> Other
lot usage. <> Will this store/station sell diesel and if
they do, would large trucks would be involved; re the left
turn situation, what would a large truck there at 5:30 do
to the problem?

CONSTANCE BARSKY would agree with everything said.  The
other thing she would ask is if you do a calculation of 60-
80 cars at peak hours to see how much money that would
generate.  It would not be much money, so they are going
to need more cars to make any money.  <>  Also, how much
tax would it generate?  A tax might support 10 kids per
year.  <>  Also, when Bob Evans realized the result of the
survey, they did cooperate with us to make their facility
agree with the Village.  {She read a report of balancing
long- and short-term, which is available from her.)  We
have a right as citizens of this community and they need
to come on our terms.  They can’t just come in and say
traffic will not have an impact.  That is not true.

End of Public Comment

A representative from Speedway reported that in Pataskala
there are 12 fuel stations.   This is not in the middle of
the village.   It’s a highway oriented location.  The
temptation to diminish the number of pumps is likely to
create a demand for more pumps.  Removing pumps is not the
way to reduce traffic.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld asked Speedway what is your goal
and the average gas sales?  Answer $8-12 per sale.  It
varies.  Mr. Parris said you know from sales reports how
many cars visited your pumps per day and how much money
you brought in.  Most of the people in the store are
probably going to be at the gas pumps.  If you can’t
answer that, you should not be in business. He wants a
check and balances and a number from the business side of
it.  If you took all your vehicles, how many trips do you
get per day per pump.  We want to see if there is a match
there.  The representative replied that after we determine
the site and layout, we decide return of investments.
    Ms. Lucier asked what would you project your
income would be?  Mr. Parris is looking for correlations
between what your business reports tell you as far as
trips going and what our traffic studies say.  Is the
traffic study worth the paper it is printed on?  He was
told those are nationally generated trip rates.  
Mr. Wilkenfeld said the studies don’t match.  We have no
idea of where they were taken from. Your goal is to make
money, but you have got to know what your average sale is
and how many cars you anticipate.  The representative said
1000 customers come into our stores, maybe 980 vehicles
per day.   A lot of businesses have a busiest time in the
peak for traffic because we want to analyze when most of
the cars are there.  Mr. Wilkenfeld asked if this comes to
$9800 per day and was told, “I don’t know about that,” by
a representative of the applicant.   Speedway could be
considered as a loss. Speedway made road improvements with
the assumption that this use would occur.  Given the
uncertainty about the future interchange, we feel it’s
appropriate to assume morning trips and to not consider
the other two lots.  The contribution that Speedway is
willing to make in addition to the improvements would be
the dedication of the ROW and what could be a 5-lane
intersection.  Our contribution would be the ROW that
would accommodate future lot improvements of lots 2 and
3.  Some lane restriping may be appropriate, i.e., right
turns.  
    Mr. Clear noted that he was working for SA on the
previous study and it was an evaluation of what needed to
be done.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld has a question for our Law Director.  The
conditions have changed for PUD’s. This is a legislative
process.  We brought our charter and codes in line with
that. The courts said it was a legislative process.  How
many times do the citizens of Granville have to go through
this.?  :Law Director Crites said every time the Supreme
Court changes anything we have to change also.  Mr.
Wilkenfeld asked, “If Village Council votes No, is that
the end of it?” The answer was: It can be appealed through
the Court of Appeals. If it goes to referendum, then what
happens?  Answer:  Appellant can make a new application,
and they can keep coming back.  Mr. Salvage noted that
they have the right to use their land.
Mr. Parris stated that Mr. Clear brought up the point
about  considering the entire site, not just the gas
station. In PUD we couldn’t do this because we have to
have the whole thing in front of us.  This is a different
zone district, but what is your opinion of how we should
consider this parcel:  One site plan for all three or one
only?
Mr. Crites said there are a number of factors GPC can and
should consider.   
Ms. Lucier asked about a difference of opinion the
Planning Commission had about the issue of the canopy.  
Seth was counting square footage as part of the building
at a ratio established for Certified.  What does the code
say?
Mr. Crites asked:  “Did you look at whether it is one or
two uses?  It could go either way.
Mr. Burris said that regarding some of the improvements
agreed upon and made with Bob Evans, the previous station
had a smaller number of pumps and square footage.  Were
you considering that?  The station we are now looking at
is bigger but the lot is also.  
The Speedway representative said originally we had 4 lots
and we incorporated two into one for the gas station.  
This is our current standard building.  Whether it was
smaller or not, there are additional improvements
recommended in our study and we agreed to implement them.
John Stephens showed shingle samples and a cultured stone
sample with colors.  The band around the building is
called the EIFS.  Synthetic stuff.  We were asked to put a
detail with cap.  Showed detail of sample at the end of
the runs for the building and also on the canopy.  He
showed the detail of the column.  We agreed on a column of
round capital and smooth shaft but we were asked to have a
tapered column. The gutter and downspouts would have a
collar that blends in.  The gutters on canopy are
internal.
Mr. Burriss asked if 60’ is sufficient for three lanes for
SA Way?  What about the type of ourdoor products?   Mr.
Stephens said this is seasonal.   Outdoor products are
important to Speedway, and we would like to be able to
keep that.
    Mr. Burriss asked what is the relationship between
the top of the ice machine and the bottom of the windows.  
He was told  it’s below the windows.  Also, we want pop
displays.  
Mr. Burriss said that we didn’t allow Certified to have
stuff outside. And they are being asked to remove it.  The
Speedway representative said they hope to come to an
understanding what you are asking for.  Outdoor display is
still under discussion.  

Dumpster:  The dumpster enclosure is same stone on two
sides with picket fence.  Enclosed on three sides with
gate on front. .Mr. Burriss asked if the propane could be
put in there between the building and the dumpster? And
Mr. Parris assumed garbage trucks backed in there and was
told Yes, there is room.

Signage: The Speedway Representative said they want to
have the permanent sign board in place of the changeable
copy sign because they are under the allowable maximum
space.  Mr. Parris said we don’t have to give the maximum
space to you.

Lighting:  Speedway said they are under Certified’s
footcandles, which were approved.  Mr. Parris thought it
didn’t look excessive.  It’s OK.  There would be external
lighting of the free-standing sign.  

Hours of Operation:  We want 24 hours; it’s important.  
The majority of the Planning Commission said no.

Purpose and Intent:  Mr. Wilkenfeld would like Mike Crites
to talk about the purpose and intent and sections under
PCD development standards A and B.  Mr. Parris feels right
out. would be a hazard.
Doyle Clear and Jack Gehrum agreed that elimination of the
right out would reduce the number of conflicts.  People
would not leave at the same time people are going through
the intersection.  The intersection at Bob Evans is going
to be full of problems.  I have worked for many
developments re gas station access and they would clearly
prefer going right out.  
Mr. Wilkenfeld called Mr. Crites’s office.  He spoke with
Mr. Gorry  about the Planned Development District.  Under
the purpose and intent {1171.01} it says it is part of the
discussion and decision process and I want Mr. Crites to
verify.  On 92G there are issues re traffic and PDD to
discuss.  Specifically Tax Revenue and how that relates to
the school the costs to us and impact on in the Village;
enhancement rather than harm; transportation; community
objectives of the Master Plan.  I want to make sure this
is something we need to work at.
Mr. Crites said the Purpose and Intent in 1171 lays out
parameters through which Village Council expects PUDs to
be achieved.  These are all things the Planning Commission
can consider in approving a development plan.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said in 92G (A-E), we are also charged to
look at safety and how it impacts the entire Village.
Mr. Crites reads from ‘c’ - “The Commission shall not
recommend nor shall Council approve a development plan
unless they find that:  A – Such planned development
provides adequate ingress and egress and does not
adversely impact traffic patterns nor unreasonably
increase traffic usage of municipal streets to the
detriment of the safety and welfare of the public.  B -
Planned development fronting on major streets shall be
provided with parallel service streets in order to limit
access to one intersection on a major street.”  C is
parking.  These are factors that need to be considered by
you and the Village Council.  

Square Footage:  Mr Parris said Mr.  Crites needs to
research this.  We came up with 85% for Certified last
year.  Mr. Dorman explained that regarding the canopy,
codes are not always clear and interpretations have to be
made.  That was made for Certified in the SBD.  The Law
Director said when you do something, you do it
consistently. Mr. Salvage does not recall the 85%
limitation so it should not be considered.  Ms. Lucier
said the Village Council said building the canopy ought to
have some relevance under massing.  We don’t have to
design it tonight.

Uses:  Mr. Parris said we have two uses which we don’t
know about yet.  I want to consider this site with the
bare bones of variances.  I think we need to apply the
code to the site plan.  Mr. Dorman explained that under
1171.03(c) deviations are allowed.  It’s within your
authority to recommend deviations.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld has a way to determine whether it
is one or two uses.  Would you build a gas station without
a store?  No.  Would you build a store without a gas
station?  No.  So it’s one use.  
Mr. Salvage said, No, that’s two uses, and Mr. Dorman said
it’s two separate uses and they are both allowable.  So
they are allowed 12,000 square feet.

Site Plan and Outdoor Sales: Mr. Wilkenfeld feels the
design of the building does not fit too well with
Granville, but it’s OK  Mr. Burriss wants additional
screening of outside sales items.  They have to enclose
outside products, and Mr. Salvage does not like propane at
the end of the building. Mr. Wilkenfeld does not want
anything outside the building.  Because you are extending
the store. But Mr. Salvage asked, “What if they provide an
enclosure. It must be screened.  Mr. Dorman reminded that
it says in the code, 1171.04 (8)  outdoor display is
prohibited.  Mr. Parris  would have to see what type of
screening is proposed.
    Mr. Burriss asked about setback and with the
current sign plan, has there been enough area allowed for
road work?  {This will be discussed later}

Lighting is OK

Greenspace:  Mr. Salvage said we want them to include an
area along SA Way.  I would allow them to use the
dedicated area for extension of utilities.  They can use
it for nondevelopment items.

Taxes:  Mr. Wilkenfeld asked about their cost to us.  Look
at the community objective of the Master Plan.  When are
the people of the Village going to get what they ask for?
Mr. Salvage figured it would be valued at $1-3 million,
land and building, including all  improvements.  Mr.
Wilkenfeld wants to be sure it does not cost the village
more for services.  It should not be a tax loss
situation.  {He reads from Master Plan}  “Smaller
facilities do not bring in much tax.”  There’s a lot of
commercial in Heath, but it does not bring in enough to
cover expenses.  Heath puts in little businesses and then
bigger businesses can’t go in.  We are not going to
generate money.  We should have other less traffic-
oriented businesses.  
Mr. Parris said you are comparing different types of
businesses re cost/ benefit ratio. It would be nice if we
could pick and choose, but I think we have to work at
what’s presented to us by the owner of the property.  It
just can’t be larger cost than benefit re infrastructure.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld said Mr. Dorman brought in figures
from Jenkins and Certified for 2001.  Certified -
$2,675/year, Jenkins - $4,191/year.  Mr. Salvage said
these are old figures.
Mr. Burriss thought that based on $1 million value, we
should be able to determine property taxes, and he asked
Mr. Dorman to get that.  Ms. Lucier asked him to look into
increased maintenance cost for widening roads.
Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that Re community objectives of the
Master Plan (1171.01), it says, “c. A development pattern
in harmony with land use density, transportation
facilities, and community facilities are objectives of the
comprehensive plan.”  He had surveys from two different
master plans.  19% wanted convenience stores, 72% did not
want convenience stores.  The Master Plan says people want
greenspace., scenic vistas, people have not gotten from
their government what they have asked for.  Why do we
spend time and money doing Master Plans and then ignore
it?  Mr. Salvage countered:  “Use the existing Master
Plan, 1998.  That’s not a master plan, it’s a survey.”
    Mr. Parris said that even though there are a lot
of things in our code, I think with the Master Plan and
some of my own views I was not put here to pass policy but
rather to measure against the code in place right now. If
public opinion is contrary to that, it will come out in
the work of the Village Council or new referendums.

Traffic:  Mr. Salvage wants the applicant to make the
upgrades proposed by the Village Traffic Consultant,
including no left hand turns.  <> Clarify the 5-lane
expansion to SA <> Eliminate right out and left out <>
Restriping.  <>SA Way will be 3 lanes. <>  If the widening
is done, how does that alter what we are looking at? <>
Sidewalk is sufficient, <> Buffers? <> I want them to
dedicate additional ROW so an additional lane can go in
the future when two lots are developed. <> Bring in final
drawing showing upgrades and additional ROW for the next
meeting.
Mr. Wilkenfeld reported that in the Master Plan ’98, page
18, it says:  “Address the highly dangerous intersection –
as evidenced by several fatal and near-fatal accidents—of
River Road and State Route 16 by making egress from River
Road onto Rt 16 from both the north and south, a right-
hand turn only.” “Granville officials should continue to
develop a process to manage access to areas of new
development so that vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows
safely and at the desired capacity and speed.”
Mr. Burriss noted that:  “I don’t want Carl to feel he is
alone. This is a very difficult issue for all of us, and
part of the reason it is difficult is that we care.  We
would not be serving on the Planning Commission if we
didn’t care.  It’s not like we are serving on the Planning
Commission because people to like us.  It is not like we
get thanks.  I want to publicly thank Carl for bringing in
the points he is making and we may have to address this
further.  I think Carl and Richard can discuss issues that
they may not agree on.  I am not sure how the cycle is
broken.  I concentrate on architecture and make things the
best they can be regardless of some of my personal
feelings.  We have to continue the process.”  Mr.
Wilkenfeld said, “I appreciate that.”

Mr. Salvage said he will draft a Finding of Fact and we
can discuss anything before we finalize at the next
meeting.  The applicant requested tabling the application
and will submit revised drawings for the next meeting.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION AT THE
APPLICANT’S REQUEST. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR
A, B, AND C{REVISED}, D. AND E {AS MODIFIED}, AND F UNDER
NEW BUSINESS (Schools, Morgan, Davis, Denison, Avery) AND
A (Miller) (AND ITEM B AS A DENIAL) (Hartzler) UNDER OLD
BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT
SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE
PLANNER’S MEMO OF JULY 8.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  12 Midnight.
Next Meetings:   July 22 and August 12

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen