Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 6/24/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 24, 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: Jeff Brown, Howard Bowen, Buck Withers,
Dave Betts, Greg Dale, Maxine Montgomery, Chad and Carolyn
Brubaker, Jerry Siper, MaryLou VanAtta, Donna Childers,
Steve Mansfield, Brian & Jean Nichols, Vera & Ron Bogert,
Mary Kay Campbell, Tom Mitchell, Mike Flood, Constance
Barsky, Judy Duncan, Cynthia & John Cort, John Eliot, Bob
Rutherford, Rose Wingert, Margaret Clayton, Rochelle
Steinberg, Jim Huddle, Jim Medeger, Judith Thomas, Sheryl
Gardner, Lee Davis, Sharon Sellito
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of May 30, 2002, and June 10, 2002:  MR. PARRIS
MOVED TO APPROVE BOTH SETS OF MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR.
BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Lee & Linda Davis, 304 North Pearl Street - Modification

    Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants wish to
extend the fence 12’ to the east, to move the gate, to
widen the driveway, and to change driveway from concrete
to brick pavers.  The concrete has already been removed
and pavers installed.  In the process the driveway was
widened to 18” on the west and 4½’ on east side.  This
widening will need a variance for lot coverage.  Changes
were made without approval of the Village Planner, so this
is an after-the-fact application.  Does this constitute a
major or minor modification?  The driveway was not on the
original application, but is part of the modification.  
The application did include addition of two patios.
    Mike Flood said his company (Albyn’s) will be
putting in the fence.  In widening the driveway, it made
sense to him to try to get two cars in that area.  He said
the applicants decided not to add the east side patio but
to add flagstones instead.  
    Ms. Lucier asked whether the pavers are such that
a few along the edge could be removed without harming the
driveway, and the answer was Yes.
    The four items at issue are: (1) replace sidewalks
and driveway with pavers; (2) lawn irrigation (not a
concern of GPC); (3) driveway widening; (4) fence
extension.  The applicant needs to submit an application
for (1) and (3).
    
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THE FENCE PORTION OF THIS
AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IS A MINOR
MODIFICATION, AND THE REST OF IT IS A MAJOR MODIFICATION.  
MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.    
MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION TO
APPLICATION #01-149 TO EXTEND THE FENCE.  MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Jim McKivergin, 124 South Main Street – Satellite Dish

Mr. Dorman said the application is to install a small dish
on the south side of rear of the building to allow a
training program for Re/Max.
Mr. McKivergin added that the dish is necessary to receive
the materials, and equipment and materials are free.  It
would go back on the shingle roof above the back deck.  It
is the only way they can provide services for their
agents.  It is not visible from the store or south side,
though it may be visible from the Park National Bank
parking lot.
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether it can withstand winds of 80
mph, and Mr. Dorman said that after an extensive telephone
search, he learned it could do so.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-078 TO INSTALL
A SATELLITE DISH.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
    
Centenary UMC, 235 East Broadway – Front Porch Railing &
Porch Foundation Renovations

    Ms. Brubaker said they wish to install a white
cedar railing on the porch with 32” spindles and to screen
the cement block foundation of the Methodist parsonage.  
    Mr. Burriss asked whether it would be 32” and said
that might not be high enough to meet the Building Code.  
Ms. Brubaker will adhere to the codes.  Mr. Dorman will
work with her on this.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-079 WITH THE
CONDITION THAT THE RAIL BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH
THE CURRENT BUILDING CODE AND THAT THE VILLAGE PLANNER
WILL ISSUE FINAL APPROVAL.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Thomas Mitchell, 335 West Elm Street – Retaining Walls

    Mr. Dorman said retaining walls are necessary to
provide proper drainage.  Mr. Mitchell said the retaining
walls would be 1’ to 4’ high and made of “Garden Wall.”  
He excavated a little bit to make sure the water would not
go into the house, but water will be captured and piped to
the back of the lot in a 4” plastic line.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-080 AS
MODIFIED BY THE DRAWING SUBMITTED 6/24/02.  MR. PARRIS
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.


Speedway/SuperAmerica, State Route 16 at Cherry Valley
Road – Speedway Gas Station

Mr. Dorman showed pictures of other Speedways in the area,
and he and the representative, Greg Dale, pointed out
various details of each.  Mr. Dale displayed a color copy
of the site plan and said this is a complicated
application and review.  He proposes to focus on those
items Mr. Dorman identified as potentially not in
compliance with the guidelines.  He believes out of the 60
items in Section 1171.03 (b), six are possibly not in
compliance and he wants to focus on those:

(1) Maximum of 6,000 square feet per Tenant:  Including
85% of the canopy is what brings Speedway over the limit.  
Mr. Dorman said the 85% arose when we dealt with
Certified.  Certified is in the SBD rather than the PCD,
but the codes are similar and we made a policy of
including the canopy in the calculation at only 85%, and
we wanted to be consistent.   Others thought the canopy
has some weight as far as lot coverage is concerned.  It
is also in relation to lot coverage, density, and maximum
single tenant.  Mr. Salvage thinks square footage is
calculated inside.  Mr. Dorman said this excess would need
a variance for maximum single tenant, or ‘deviation,’ as
it is called now.  The Planning Commission has guidelines
for reviewing development plans.  The Planning Commission
has the authority to vary from these guidelines.

(2) Build-to Line and Front Yard Setback:  Build-to lines
should be 30’ from the right-of-way.  The representative
said that provision is primarily intended for older areas
where they are trying to preserve street frontage.  That
does not make sense here on the busy highway.  The only
way they could meet it would be to turn the building
around.

(3) Height:  Minimum is 1½ stories, and the architect has
responded to the Planning Commission’s comments on this.  
The application shows 1 story in appearance.

(4) Hours of Operation:  They are proposing a 24-hour
operation because it’s on a state route with no residents
around.

(5) Lighting:  25 foot candles are the maximum, but at
some spots the proposal is for 35 foot candles for safety
sake. There is no light spillover.    

(6) Signage:  Deviances are necessary.  What is being
proposed is a similar package as was approved for
Certified.

(7) Parking spaces:  15 is the maximum allowed for this
particular proposal, but they are proposing 12 regular
spaces with 1 handicapped space and the space around the
pumps could also be counted.  Mr. Salvage said our Law
Director said we could count the spaces at the pumps, but
Mr. Dorman clarified that the code was providing for a
maximum not a minimum.

    These items will be discussed after the traffic
discussion.



Comments from Citizens

    Vera Bogert said she lives ½ mile away and has
concerns about the water table and having toxic materials
so close to her well.  Is there to be a monitoring
process?  The representative said there is a sensitive
monitoring service.  They have environmental catch basins,
and water will go into the retention pond and flow out.  
Any contamination would be pumped out and go into a
terminal to be recycled.
    Mr. Salvage asked about insurance against
contamination, and the representative said they are self-
insured.  He asked whether they contribute to the state
fund for clean-ups, and the representative could not
answer that question.
    When a lift station is put in, the underground
water table has to be lowered.  Speedway plans to raise
the site several feet.  They don’t anticipate going very
deep for the tanks, about 13’.  The site will be raised to
street level, or 1’ above grade.
    John Cort brought up the traffic concerns,
especially with a possible River Road closing.  State
Route 16 was built as a bypass around Granville; now
people are going through Granville to bypass traffic on SR-
16.  He said future eventualities must be considered as
well as the Speedway corner, but Mr. Salvage didn’t know
that we can make assumptions at this time.  Mr. Cort said
there are 25-30 cars waiting behind a stopped school bus
    Constance Barsky said the application is for fuel
sales, as opposed to a gas station.  They are not included
in permitted uses as a convenience store. <> Also,
regarding the survey from the Master Plan, did citizens
agree that they needed it?  72% said a convenience store
was not needed, nor was gasoline.  They didn’t build a gas
station at that time because people didn’t want it. <> Six
pumps are not needed most of the time, and they could
reduce them to four. <> The Master Plan does not want 24-
hour stores.  To ask for a variance is inappropriate. <>
We need a clear indication of what taxes would be
generated.  A building like this would be at a minimum
level. Certified only pays $1700 per year in property
taxes.
Rochelle Steinberg is concerned about the traffic.  At 5
p.m. and lunchtime you can wait for three light cycles.  A
gas station would only contribute to the congestion. Mr.
Salvage said the Village has been working on timing of the
signal and he thinks it’s been better this week.
MaryLou VanAtta lives on Cherry Valley Road and agrees
that the traffic is horrendous and will be getting worse
with the River Road traffic.  If they want to widen the
road, the only way to do it is to have more commercial
development.  The Cherry Valley Lodge has its own turn
lane.
Sharon Sellito asked why the applicants are calling it a
store that sells gas rather than just a gas station.  
Didn’t we vote against that?  The referendum was to
overturn Village Council’s decision to have it, according
to the October 1998, Sentinel.  It was defeated by 63%.
Mr. Salvage asked for additional citizens comments and
pointed out that this is the only opportunity for such;
however no further comments were made, Mr. Salvage ended
the citizens comments section.

End Citizens Comments

    Mr. Wilkenfeld thought there was some confusion
with the code.  This is legislative, and we are looking at
variances.  Anything that affects the well being of the
community, such as traffic, we can take into account.
    Mr. Dorman referred the group to 1171.03 (c), 1-8,
which outlines the considerations to make our decision.  
    Ms. Lucier thought traffic was an underlying issue
we have to deal with before we get to lighting and
signage, and we need to talk with traffic consultants.
    Regarding whether or not a store is an appropriate
use, everything done in a convenience store falls into
what is listed here.   Is what it says, exclusive of other
kinds of stores?  This is a gas station and other items
are a convenience.  There’s nothing inappropriate, nothing
allows us to exclude.  A convenience store is an
amalgamation of things listed here.
    Mr. Parris said when we worked on Certified that
was already an existing business.  They had a store
before. Mr. Dorman said the issue of a convenience store
never arose for Certified because they already had a
store, albeit a small one.
    Mr. Parris said as far as definitions go, 50 years
ago a gas station provided service, but now they all have
convenience stores.  Is a convenience store considered a
grocery store?   Does a gas station automatically include
a convenience store?   If a gas station is something that
just sells gas, what do we call one that sells gas,
convenience items, and service?  Mr. Wilkenfeld thought it
was a convenience store with gas sales.  It needs a
definition.  
Mr. Salvage asked whether we are comfortable under our
zoning code to proceed with this application, and Mr.
Parris said yes, if it is a permitted use.  Mr. Wilkenfeld
and Ms. Lucier want a legal opinion, and Mr. Main was very
concerned about traffic and stacking.  
The engineer present said his firm did not prepare the
traffic study.  He is here for site design and couldn’t
respond to traffic questions. Mr. Salvage specifically
requested the traffic engineer’s presence.  The attorney
said they look at traffic generated by their development.  
They found that 70% of the trips generated by Speedway
come from vehicles already on the road, and the other 30%
of the trips generated by Speedway would be new trips.  
The traffic problem is caused by the high regional traffic
on SR-16.  This applicant has already contributed $250,000
toward road improvements.  This facility will not cure
traffic problems at the intersection nor materially
increase it.  Mr. Salvage said neither traffic study felt
this facility would substantially impact traffic already
there.  
Ms. Lucier said it’s the turns that significantly affect
the traffic situation more than just the number of cars.  
Mr. Wilkenfeld is concerned about the complexities of lane
shifting on SR-16 and that slower vehicles have to cut
across two lanes of traffic to get to the left turn lane
at the intersection.  This is what causes accidents.  
Mr. Salvage thought the only concern was making left turns
out of the proposed gas station.  But Mr. Wilkenfeld felt
we are responsible for the wider community, and that
people avoid the traffic on SR-16 by going through town.  
Mr. Salvage thought that had nothing to do with the
Speedway proposal.  Mr. Salvage thought the issue was how
we make sure Speedway does not exacerbate the situation.
Mr. Burriss said all of us have major concerns about
traffic and the traffic studies.  They are not easy to
read, and we all have a little built-in distrust toward
traffic studies.  To move forward, there needs to be
greater explanations of the traffic situation, we need
additional information.

The group returned to the items of concern noted by Greg
Dale earlier:

(1)    Maximum Single Tenant: Lot coverage is OK.  The
canopy is included in the gross square footage and puts it
over the maximum, but Mr. Salvage has never heard of a
canopy included in the single tenant calculation.  We
would have a hard time denying this application because of
this overage.  The canopy should be an accessory
structure.  Mr. Wilkenfeld said that from the top the
canopy is larger than the building   He thought GPC could
ask for fewer pumps and make the canopy smaller.  Mr.
Parris thought it should be considered under lot coverage
but not under gross square footage.  Mr. Dorman said we
addressed that for Certified, and the interpretation was
that of the Law Director, who said it is a structure but
since it does not have walls, you could give a discount by
counting only 85% of its square footage.  For consistency
we need to do the same.  Mr. Salvage pointed out that
under Section 1171.03 (b) square footage is limited to
6,000 square feet per tenant or use, and that this
applicant has 2 uses and therefore is allowed 12,000
square feet making it acceptable under the code in his
opinion.  Mr. Wilkenfeld wondered whether there are two
tenants, the convenience store and the gas station.
(2)    Build-To Line:  Mr. Wilkenfeld would prefer having
the front facing SuperAmerica Way.  Green space buffers
would be added to shield the rear from SR-16.  Mr. Burriss
said that was to permit parking behind the facade of the
building.  The applicant should provide a site plan that
includes location of the ROW and edge.  The representative
said they would not remove the fence and trees.
(3)    Height:  The Commission had no problem.  The
applicant has followed our recommendations.
(4)    Hours of Operation:  Mr. Wilkenfeld feels they
should stick to the maximum 18 hours. Ms. Lucier agrees
and feels there would be less need of police protection
with 18 hours. Mr. Burriss is not comfortable with the
additional hours in terms of future areas and also
properties of similar function that are already under that
restriction. Mr. Parris agrees.  Mr. Salvage has a
question with what the code says, and he has no problem
with a 20-hour operation.  The representative wants us to
consider a deviation.  
(5)    Lighting:  Mr. Salvage thought this looked like a
modest plan.  Ms. Lucier asked whether it falls under the
foot candle restrictions.  The representative said there
are very few instances where it does exceed 25, and they
are all under the canopy.  The pumps are internally
illuminated for the price and the pay at the pump screen.  
Lights are recessed under the canopy and it goes directly
down. Mr. Burriss asked whether their plan considers all
sources of lighting, i.e., light coming through the
window, or just under the canopy.  The representative said
the company who prepared this takes all lighting into
consideration. The group wanted more information. Mr.
Salvage thought Speedway should get a copy of what we
approved for Certified.
(6)    Signage:  There will not be signage on the pumps.  
Mr. Burriss said we do not allow products to be stored
outside, i.e., mulch.  There are to be no pop machines
outside.  The representative asked for one ice machine and
propane sales and Mr. Salvage thought they may need to
enclose them. The ice machine should have no signage.  
Changeable message signs are not permitted.  The
application now asks for two signs:  An internally lit
freestanding sign, which would need a variance, and a
large wall sign, internally lit, over the door with the
moving “S” logo. The frame is aluminum with a plastic
cap.  The part under the S is solid, not glass.   The
architect explained the pediment, the narrow band, and the
column caps.  Color samples will be provided.  Mr. Parris
didn’t really want to discuss how different this proposal
is from the normal Speedway proposal.  
(7)    Dumpster:  Mr. Dorman asked whether the covering
for the dumpster is opaque and similar to other sites and
was told they can do anything we like. Mr. Salvage said to
put it in the back with a door and provide details to us.
(8)    Parking:  Resolve the right-in, left-out
situation.  The representative said the sidewalk would
have to be on top of a utility easement.  The drawing will
provide sidewalks 5’ behind the Cherry Valley Road tree
lawn.
(9)    Open Space:  The applicants are planning to
dedicate 12 acres in the floodplain to the Licking Land
Trust.  
(10)    Landscape Plan:  Mr. Burriss would like to see
more detail on the Landscape Plan in terms of species and
type and planting heights.  There will be potted flowers
with irrigation.
(11)    Other Details:  Mr. Burriss thought additional
investigation should be done to surrounding water.  The
representative said they can provide EPA information. <>
The Engineer is to provide geologic water pumping details.
<>   The rear entrance is used only for emergencies; which
needs to be addressed. <> Mr. Burriss preferred the
columns to be fluted, and the architect said OK but they
are trying to give a contemporary appearance.  <> Edge of
canopy should be of a different color.
What is needed next?  Color samples, traffic engineers for
traffic discussion, and Joe Hickman and the Law Director
should be invited.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-081 PENDING
FURTHER INFORMATION.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Davis) AND A, B,AND C  
(McKivergin, Brubaker, Mitchell) UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND
WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE
ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF
JUNE 21ST.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  10:45 p.m.
Next Meetings:   July 8th and July 22nd

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 6/10/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 10, 2002
 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:   Nancy Graham, Jerry Martin, Carlos
Brezina, Mark Evans, Jim Hartzler, Douglas Mill, Curt
Shonk  
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

The minutes of May 30th were postponed until the next
meeting.

Old Business:

Village Brewing Company, 128 East Broadway – Two-Story
Addition

    Mr. Dorman explained that the application is for a
new two-story addition and for demolishing the existing
rear addition in order to meet building code.  There will
be an enclosure for the stairwell and the dumpster, and
the fire escape will be relocated to 33’ north of its
present location in the little alleyway. The re-striping
of the parking lot will allow more space for a fire lane.  
The lot coverage is under the maximum.
    Mr. Brezina presented the new drawings with the
proposed changes.  They will put the air conditioning
units on the roof, and only a little bit of it will be
visible.  He showed where the dumpster would be and
discussed the proposed building materials.
    Mr. Parris asked whether he has consulted with the
neighbors regarding the location of the stairs, and Mr.
Martin said that the Deli would not have a problem with
storage below the stairs, and moving the woodshed would be
ok too.  Nancy Graham said Jerry Martin has done an
excellent job of addressing all their concerns and she now
approves of the plans.   Ben Rader had called Mr. Salvage
with his approval earlier in the day.
    They are still thinking about the colors and Mr.
Brezina showed color samples. There will be smooth-face
block for the window infills.  The lintels are to be a
different color.  Colors to be chosen from are Oberfields
#204, 208, 212, and 206.  

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-062, FOR THE
VILLAGE BREWING COMPANY, WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS:  
1) THAT THE APPLICANT HAS CHOSEN OBERFIELDS #204 SPLIT
BLOCK FOR THE WALLS AND THE SMOOTH SIDE OF THE SAME #204
FOR THE WINDOW INFILLS; 2) THE APPLICANT WILL BE USING
EITHER OBERFIELDS #208, 212, OR 206 COLORS FOR THE LINTELS
AND THOSE WILL BE USING THE SMOOTH SIDE OF THE PRODUCT;
AND 3) THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS APPROVING THE
DRAWING AS REVISED JUNE 6, 2002.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Woeste Real Estate, 142 East Broadway – Existing Signage
Redesign

    Mr. Dorman said Woeste Real Estate has merged with
Prudential Residential One Realtors, and they need to
change their signage to reflect that.  They want to
maintain the dark green as on the existing signs, and the
lettering and graphics will be white.  The sign over the
awning is 8’x1’4” and the other, on the Prospect side of
the building, would be 16”x24”.  Both signs would use the
existing wood trim and would match the old ones as closely
as possible.  A variance is needed because of the change
in typography and text as well as the graphics.  The
variance is for the number of wall signs per building.  
This would be a total of three, given the wall sign we
approved earlier for ZoomwerX.  This was similar to the
situation for Unizan Bank.
Mr. Salvage wondered whether the sign code included
instructions for corner businesses.
    
Mr. Wilkenfeld applied the criteria for variances to the
application:

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.  Special circumstances are the
nature of the building on the corner.  It has two faces
and multiple tenants.
    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.  
Any number of buildings downtown has similar circumstances
and we have granted similar variances, such as Unizan Bank
and the Woeste building itself.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  They result
from the nature of the building.
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.  He can no longer use the old signs.  If we deny
this variance, we would be denying the applicant equal
treatment.  We are not changing the total number of signs
or sizes or color or appearance of existing signs.
E.  That the granting of the variance will in no other
manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general
welfare of the persons residing or working within the
vicinity of the proposed variance.  It would not.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR
APPLICATION #02-075 TO ALLOW FOR TWO WALL SIGNS.  MS.
LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-075 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  1) THAT THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED
THAT HE WILL BE ATTEMPTING TO USE THE CURRENT SIGN FRAME
AND TRIM TREATMENTS AROUND THOSE; AND 2) THAT THE
APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE COLORS WILL BE THE SAME AS
THE EXISTING SIGNS AND THAT THE LETTERING AND GRAPHICS
WILL BE EITHER WHITE OR IVORY.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Jim Hartzler, 203 North Pearl Street – Retaining Wall

    Mr. Dorman explained there is a drainage problem,
and the applicant wants to construct a retaining wall of
historic foundation stone with a drainage line at the rear
of the wall to be directed toward North Plum Street.
    Jim Hartzler said they are very anxious to take
ownership.  The major problem (which they knew about when
they bought the property) is the drainage problems.  The
Stoneburners put in a sump pump, but what the applicants’
desire is to construct a retaining wall on the property
line with a drainage line directed toward the storm sewer
on North Plum Street.  For materials, they studied, (1)
Split-face block, but that would not look good on an old
house; (2) Briar Hill, but they were not happy with that
either, or (3) the contractor said he has a source from
old sandstone foundation stones that will match the uphill
house.   They had a legal survey and boundary survey, and
the drainage line will be on their property.    Some of
the drain water comes from the Murr house next door, and
they will address that also.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether Ms. Murr has been
consulted, and the answer was yes. Mr. Hartzler did not
ask her specifically whether she wanted to tie into this,
but it would be his intent to try to offer her the
solution at no cost.  She does not mind the wall.  He
wants her downspouts to enter the drainage.  
    Ms. Lucier asked whether the retaining wall stops
before the sidewalk, and the answer was yes.  It will go
behind the tree and taper to the sidewalk.  You can see
that there was probably a retaining wall there at one
time; you can see stones at the rear of the property.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-076 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Bryn Du Woods - Phase V

    The representatives from Bryn Du explained their
intention for the layout with the same number of lots
(25); they have been widened to 55’.  Mr. Parris asked
about the easement to Fanchion Lewis Park and was shown
where there would be pathway connections.
Mr. Salvage asked whether final plans have been drawn, and
the representatives wanted input from the Planning
Commission before final plans would be drawn.  These homes
will not be visible from Newark-Granville Road.  
    In answer to a question, Bob Kent said they are in
no hurry to get started and probably they will wait until
next year.

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Brew’s) AND A AND B  
(Woeste and Hartzler) UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM
CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE
AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF JUNE 7TH.  
MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Closing Comments:    

A.  Mr. Salvage had asked Mr. Dorman to locate minutes
where we set up procedures for handling applications {see
Minutes of February 22, 1999}.  We may be looking at some
complicated applications in the future and we should have
a procedure in mind.  Mr. Salvage provided a similar
statement.
    Mr. Parris is not averse to having a procedure,
and it’s within our right to set conditions at a meeting.  
He is not objecting to doing this but wants to look at it
closer.
    Mr. Salvage said we want to agree with procedures
to follow.  He is not sure we need to summarize this.  Mr.
Wilkenfeld thinks this is OK.  
    Mr. Parris said at a meeting where we foresee that
this is the case, we should let people know of our
intentions. These should be guidelines rather than
procedures.   Mr. Main said we want to avoid having a
person with an opinion talking directly to the applicant
rather than to the Planning Commission.  Everyone needs
time to talk but must not steal other people’s time.
    Mr. Burriss recalls one time when someone was
addressing something longer than 3 minutes, with
photographs.  When a person has a valid point to make and
a prepared presentation, he should have more time.  Mr.
Salvage said we can informally extend time limits.  
    Ms. Lucier suggested putting the guidelines next
to the Agendas on the sign-in table.  We are allowed to
make our own guidelines, under the Charter.
    The consensus of the group was to follow these
guidelines, and    Mr. Salvage summarized:  (1) We call them
guidelines; (2) We will act within 45 days; (3) We can
table or remove at applicant’s request; and (4) The Chair
can extend the 3-minute limit.

    B. Mr. Burriss asked about the Recognition or
Award for Excellent Applications, and Mr. Dorman said he
is still looking for a model from German Village, Hudson,
and other places.

Adjournment:  8:40 p.m.
Next Meetings:  June 24 and July 8

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 5/30/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 30, 2002
 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Mark Parris (Vice Chair),
Richard Salvage (Chair), Richard Main
Members Absent: Barb Lucier, Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Ben and Nadine Rader, Betty Morrison,
Mary Bibee, Nancy Graham, Jerry Martin, Carlos Brezina,
Jeff Decker
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of April 22, 2002:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of May 1, 2002:  MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of May 13, 2002:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Jeff Decker, 328 East Elm Street – New Brick Patio and
Arbor

    Mr. Dorman described the plans for the replacement
of the dilapidated porch and patio with a new brick patio
and 12’ tall arbor.  The arbor would be constructed of
treated lumber and painted to match the house.   The
previous porch has already been demolished and approval is
required at this time.    
Jeff Decker showed the Commission where the patio would be
located and said it will be slightly larger than the
previous porch.  The ends of the lumber of the arbor will
be faced with another piece of lumber.
Mr. Burriss thinks the project would be complementary to
the house, and Mr. Parris said it would be a nice addition
to the yard.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-070 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. PARRIS
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Business & Professional Association – Sidewalk
Signs for GBPA Sponsored Events

    Mr. Dorman explained the signage desired by the
group for their three events:  (1) Farmers’ Market, 3
white sidewalk signs to be set up on Saturday mornings,
June 15 through October 5 at the Woeste Corner, the
Centenary corner, and at Park National Bank; (2) Granville
Garden Tour, 2 signs to be used in conjunction with a
poster for the Farmers’ Market.  One side of the sidewalk
sign would be for the Garden Tour and the other for
Farmers’ Market.  These signs are to be set up at Woeste
and at Park National Bank, May 30 through June 15, 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m.;  (3) Street Scenes, both sides of 2 sandwich
boards set up every day June 14 through June 27, 9 a.m. to
5 p.m. at the Woeste corner and at Park National Bank.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-071 WITH THE
AMENDMENT THAT THE FARMERS’ MARKET SIDEWALK SIGN WILL BE
USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GRANVILLE GARDEN TOUR SIGN
AND THAT IT WILL BE DISPLAYED UP THROUGH JUNE 15TH.  A
SEPARATE SANDWICH BOARD FOR THE FARMERS’ MARKET WILL BE
DISPLAYED ONLY ON SATURDAY MORNINGS AT THE LOCATIONS AS
PRESENTED.  THE FARMERS’ MARKET SIGN WILL BE AS IN THE
PHOTOGRAPH THE APPLICANT SUPPLIED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Betty Morrison – Antique Show Signs

    The applicant is seeking signs advertising the
upcoming antique show:

(1) A free-standing, 4’x3’ advertising sign at New Burg
Street at 661 is to direct the public to the new
location.  It will be a white sign with red and black
letters.
(2) A 2’x3’ sign at Dr. Scarpetti’s location at Westgate
and in front of the IGA parking lot.  It will be a white
sign with red and black letters.

Because of the construction at the high school, more
directional signs are requested for the new location.  Due
to the fact that the media was given the wrong dates by
the Chamber of Commerce, it is crucial to set up the signs
as soon as possible.  

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-072 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Village Brewing Company, 128 East Broadway – Two-Story
Addition

    Mr. Dorman explained that the application is for a
new two-story addition and for demolishing the existing
rear addition in order to meet building code.  A 4’ wide
fire escape stairwell would be at the rear.  Another
proposal is for the re-striping of the parking lot to
allow more space.
    Mr. Brezina showed new drawings with changes.  He
showed where the fire door, grease pit and holding tank
and dumpster would be. The dumpster would have to slide
out to be dumped.  
    Mr. Salvage asked for citizens’ comments because
the plans before us tonight are not the ones submitted
with the application.  
    Ben Rader asked why not put the stairs at the side
rather than the back, and Mr. Salvage said they will be
recessed.  Mr. Rader has a problem with the stairwell at
the back and the rearranged parking lot. They have not
talked to the neighbors about the project.  Nancy Graham
is also upset about not having been consulted.  Although
she is excited that they are expanding and are doing good
business, she is concerned about the jutting out and that
makes it hard for all, especially trucks.  If we are going
to lose even one parking spot, she does support the
project.
    Mr. Salvage asked whether there are any comments
from the Fire Department. Mr. Dorman said the Fire Chief
was at the BZBA meeting and they are concerned because
there would not be enough width for a fire lane.
    Mr. Salvage is not comfortable with moving ahead
with this tonight, particularly with the new plans; there
has been insufficient time for the Village Planner to
review them as well as the neighboring property owners.  
The neighbors are very concerned, and do not know what
they are looking at.
    Mr. Parris thinks we owe it to the public to have
a final set of plans in front of us.  However, if there
are any discussions we could have tonight that might move
things along, that would be appropriate.  He asked about
space in the alley, and Jerry Martin said there is an
easement for the alley between the buildings.  The Arants
own the alley, but they say there is an easement.  The
easement does not apply in the rear, and he has not had
conversations about it.
    Mr. Burriss asked if the fire stairwell could have
something under it, and Mr. Brezina said maybe.    Mr.
Burriss thought if something were able to be worked out
where the Broadway Deli lost the woodshed but gained space
under the fire stairwell in the alley, that could let them
put their storage under the staircase.  The woodshed does
not enhance the alley.  If we could put the fire stairs in
the alley and still provide storage for them that might
work.  Our charge is to improve and enhance things for
everybody, not to make things worse.  The alley is an
eyesore and we understand that and we can make a clean
service space if we separate the front part from the
rear.  What would the Deli’s objections be to putting the
stairway in the back of the alley?  He thinks the details
of the fire escape can be worked out and he would like to
see windows across the second floor.
    With too many unanswered questions on the table,
Jerry Martin requested tabling the application. Mr.
Salvage wanted official notice sent to everybody when this
is on the agenda regarding changes in the parking lot—Greg
Ream, Ben Rader, the Arants, and the Fire Department.  

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-062 AT THE
APPLICANT’S REQUEST.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE B, C AND D
(Decker, GBPA and Morrison) AS PRESENTED, AND WE FIND THEM
CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE
AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF MAY 23RD.  
MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Adjournment:  8:35 p.m.
Next Meeting:  June 10 and June 24

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 5/13/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 13, 2002
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:   Eloise DeZwarte, Constance Barsky,
Jerry Martin, Jonathan Wocher, John Stephens, Brian
Parsley, Dave and Cindy Farley, Carlos Brezina, Judy
Duncan, Leta and Greg Ross, Flo and Bill Hoffman
Citizens’ Comments:  1) Eloise DeZwarte – 338 East College
Street:  Ms. DeZwarte raised a concern about the
unfinished state of the garage project that was approved
for Deb Hibler over two years ago.  As she understood it,
the applicant had 1 year to start and 2 years to finish
the project.  Mr. Dorman explained that the time limit on
her permit expired and that he requested she submit a
letter to the Village Manager requesting a time extension,
which she did and that she was given to the end of May to
finish.
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of April 8, 2002 (This happened after the 7:00
work session):  

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 8,
2002 AS CORRECTED.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session (Started early at 7:00 p.m.):

Village of Granville – Continue Discussion of Proposed
Zoning Code Changes

    The Law Director started right into the discussion
of the proposed changes, on page 21, where the Planning
Commission left off at the special May 1st meeting:

    Page 21:      Mostly code revisions
        Lines 18 through 23 – Attempting to clean
up the language
        Line 42 – The words “and recreation,” are
being deleted
    Page 22:    Line 52 – The
word “Architectural,” is being deleted
    Page 23:    Line 1 – The word “modifications,”
is being deleted and “alterations,” is being added
        Line 23 - The word “modifications,” is
being deleted and “alterations,” is being added
    Page 24:    Line 3 – The word “Architectural,”
is being deleted
        Line 30 – The words “and site plan,” are
being added.  
        Lines 31 and 32 – The
words “recommendation for,” are being deleted in
recognition
        that Planning Commission is actually
approving the projects
        Lines 42 through 44 – Allowing the Zoning
Inspector to approve minor modifications
        rather than the Planning Commission having
to approve them

    Mr. Parris asked if there could be a mechanism for
the Zoning Inspector to report back to the Planning
Commission on the modifications he/she has approved.  Mr.
Crites said yes, and that the intent of this change is not
to decrease the Zoning Inspector’s communication with the
Planning Commission.  Mr. Salvage said that he wants the
Zoning Inspector to still have the latitude to bring any
modification back to the Planning Commission if he/she is
uncomfortable making the decision.

    Page 25:     Line 11 – The words “and
approval,” are added
        Lines 51 and 52 – The Planning Commission
is actually approving the projects
    Page 27:    An appellate procedure for the
denial of a demolition permit is added
    Pages 28 and 29:   The changes on these pages are
code revisions
    Page 30:    Language is inserted consistent
with the Crossen Case, relative to the development plan
        approval procedure being legislative
rather than administrative
        Lines 10 through 14 – This language is to
cover the number of situations where PUDs
        have no approved site plan

    Mr. Crites added, regarding Page 30, that it is
common practice to not approve PDDs and/or PUDs without:  
(1) Approval of a development plan; and (2) Changing the
zoning map.

    Page 31:    The changes here are mostly code
revisions
        Lines 44 through 48 – The “fast food”
definition is removed and placed under the
        definition section
    Page 32:    The changes on this page are code
revisions
    Page 33:    (b) is former (c) and the rest are
code revisions
    Page 34:    There is an unnumbered or
unlettered paragraph that has been made (c), and (d)
        becomes the large table
    Pages 36 and 37:   The language is changed to
allow the Zoning Inspector the ability to approve
                    minor modifications in the
PUD
    Page 38:    Line 25 – The words “such as,” are
being deleted to make it consistent with other
        sections
    Page 39:    The changes here are code
revisions, in lines 11, 13 and 16 the word “site,” is
being
        added in front of plan
    Page 40:    Line 23 – The
word “Architectural,” is being deleted
        Lines 45 through 51 – Section (d),
Allowing the Zoning Inspector the ability to approve
        minor modifications after the site plan
has been approved

    The Planning Commission members wanted to revisit
Page 16.  Mr. Crites explained that there are two types of
variances, and use variances are not permitted.  The new
standard for area variances is “practical difficulty.”  
Mr. Crites said that after the BZBA reviews the changes he
will put together a red line copy of the comprehensive
changes to the proposal.  Mr. Salvage revisited a concern
he had on Page 18, relative to the BZBA being allowed to
apply conditions regarding the character of the structures
and he feels that the language may be stepping on the
powers and authorities of the Planning Commission.
    This concluded the Planning Commission’s review of
the proposed zoning code changes and the regular meeting
proceeded with the review of the April 8th minutes.


New Business:

Eloise DeZwarte, 338 East College Street – Extend Existing
Fence in East Side Yard

    Mr. Dorman introduced the project first with a
slide showing the house at the subject property.  Next he
described the project in that the applicant wants to
extend the existing 6’ lattice fence, 17’4” to the north,
and that additional plantings will be installed around the
new fence.  He then put up several pictures for the
discussion of the project.
    Ms. DeZwarte explained that in 1994 the Law’s
wanted to move their driveway over to the lot line and she
was ok with that as long as he put up screening.  Ms
DeZwarte explained that she planted a vine around it.
    Mr. Burriss asked if the finish of the extension
will be the same as the existing and he was told yes.  Mr.
Burriss wondered if it would be ok if that was made a
condition of approval and Ms. DeZwarte said ok.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-059 WITH THE
CONDITION THAT THE PROPOSED FENCE BE FINISHED THE SAME AS
THE EXISTING FENCE.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Newkirk Design Studio, 226 East Broadway – Install a
Projecting Sign

    Mr. Dorman introduced the project first with a
slide showing the building at the subject property.  Next
he described the sign in that it will be similar to the
existing “Crown & Cushion” sign; it is to be 30” wide x
42” tall; it would be a wood sign with flat letters; and
it will have a cream background with a watermark image and
a dark green border and lettering.  Mr. Dorman then showed
a slide that simulated what the sign would look like on
the building.  He then redisplayed the slide with the
picture of the sign and its details for the discussion of
the project.
    Mr. Newkirk explained that the watermark image
will be darker than it is portrayed in the presentation.  
Mr. Wilkenfeld questioned the nature of the watermark and
was told that that Ms. Newkirk’s salon uses Aveda©
products and that the company gave her several acceptable
images and she choose the one proposed because those
products have a wheat base and the image depicts an
agricultural setting.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-060 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Brian and Stephanie Parsley, 316 West Maple Street – Build
Full Front Porch and Other Exterior Improvements

    Mr. Dorman introduced the project first with a
slide showing the house at the subject property.  Next he
described the full front porch portion of the project.  
The plan includes remove the existing partial front porch
and replacing it with a 27’ wide full porch that is to
have 6” pine flooring; the porch would have 5” x 5” square
posts with square-styled balustrades; crown moldings will
be installed under the eaves and at the top of the porch
skirt; there would be lattice under the porch skirt; and
two sets of steps on either side of the porch.  
The second part of the plan is to put new siding on the
whole structure.  The existing siding will be replaced
with 6 ½” beaded vinyl siding, sage in color with white
trim.  Crown molding will be installed at the top of the
walls under the soffit.  Gutters and downspouts will be
added to the house and an octagon-shaped accent window
will be installed on the east facade.
Next the applicant is proposing a 450 square foot rear
patio which would be installed near the northwest corner
of the house and would have two (2) walkways between the
two existing gates.  The patio will be stamped concrete
with a slate pattern and will be moss green and beige in
color.
The fourth project in the application is to install a
retaining wall along the east part of the front yard to
level the yard.  The front walk will be rerouted to
service both the east side and front walk steps and the
new east steps on the front porch.  New planter beds will
be installed in front of the new porch and on the west
side of the house.  In addition the east side steps will
be reconstructed to align with the new porch and to
improve climbing angles and tread depth.
In addition the applicant is proposing some improvements
to the lower roofs on the east side.  The project includes
leveling and realigning the east lower roofs to create a
single fascia line.  All lower roofs will be re-shingled
and the primary roof will be re-shingled from slate to
asphalt shingle.
Finally, the applicant is proposing to affix a stone
veneer to the existing exposed foundation.
Several questions were asked relative to the proximity of
the projects and Mr. Parsley showed where each of the
questioned projects would be located on the pictures Mr.
Dorman provided for discussion.
Mr. Parris asked about the siding on the house and Mr.
Parsley said it is 20 years old and in bad shape.
Mr. Salvage asked about the plans for the new porch.  Mr.
Parsley explained that the porch would be anywhere from 5
to 13’ in depth.  Ms. Lucier asked if the front door was
being moved and she was told no.  Mr. Salvage asked about
the trim at the top of the porch.  Mr. Burriss began a
discussion about the architectural details of the new
porch versus the original detailing of the partial porch.  
Mr. Parsley explained that they were trying to accomplish
a simpler architecture on the new porch.  He accounted how
he drove around town and looked at many different porches
and found that half the porches he saw have square
balusters.  He discussed the size and rooflines that he
found and how he and his wife both grew up with full front
porches and that is the feeling they are trying to
achieve.  Ms. Lucier explained how when she screened in
her porch they used some of the old wood from the original
porch as decorative molding on the new porch.  Mr. Parsley
noted that the current posts are fluted and wondered that
if he were to flute the new posts if that was a step in
the right direction.  Mr. Parris said you could start off
with posts that have that detail or use a smaller post and
wrap it with detail.  Mr. Burriss noted that there are a
couple porch examples in town that utilized inexpensive
details.  It was decided that the application could be
approved pending additional front porch detail drawings
being submitted and approved by the Village Planner and
Mr. Burriss.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-063 WITH THE
CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT RETURNS TO THE VILLAGE
PLANNER AND MR. BURRISS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE FRONT
PORCH DETAILS.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dave and Cindy Farley, 228 Sunrise Street – New Single
Family Residence

    Mr. Dorman introduced the project first by showing
the existing house at the subject property.  He then
explained the proposed house:  that it will replace the
fire damaged home; that it will be a full two-stories with
a gable peak; and that it will have a first floor
footprint of 1,826 square feet.  Mr. Dorman then put up
several pictures and sketches for the discussion of the
project.
    Ms. Farley explained that there are a couple
proposed window changes and then shared a trace drawing of
the elevations that showed the changes.  
    Mr. Burriss asked to have the applicant show him
the footprint of the existing house on the site plan.  Mr.
Burriss wondered what the height is of the house on the
lot to the south, and Mr. Dorman did not know.
    Mr. Burriss asked about the proposed exterior
materials, and Ms. Farley said it is proposed to be wood
siding, taupe in color with white trim.
    Ms. Farley then showed Ms. Lucier the proposed
window changes.
    Mr. Salvage asked about whether there will be a
garage and/or a driveway and Ms. Farley said that there is
an existing driveway between the school and the house and
that a garage is not being proposed.
    Mr. Salvage asked about a landscape plan and Ms.
Farley said they do not have one yet but will submit it
when they do.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-064, SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  1) THAT THE WOOD SIDING BE
PAINTED TAUPE WITH WHITE TRIM; 2) THAT THE WINDOW
MODIFICATIONS BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED; 3) THAT THE
ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION WHERE THE SITE PLAN SHOWS IT TO BE
UNEXCAVATED IS APPROVED; AND 4) THAT A LANDSCAPE PLAN BE
BROUGHT BACK FOR REVIEW BY THE TREE & LANDSCAPE COMMISSION
AND REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.  MR.
BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Fackler Country Gardens, 1098 Newark-Granville Road –
Install a Temporary Contractor’s Sign

    Mr. Dorman introduced the application first by
showing a picture of the work site as it currently
exists.  Mr. Dorman then explained the proposed sign and
showed the actual sign to the Commission.  The sign is to
be 3 square feet installed at 3’ tall, about 13’ from the
pavement’s edge at about the middle of the lot.  The sign
will have a white background with black lettering and a
black and green logo.  
    The Commission had no questions.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-065 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Work Sessions:

Granville Ross IGA – Continue Discussion of Parking Lot
Improvements

    The work session focused on the design of the ATM
loop design, the sidewalk from Main Street and alternative
configurations for the sidewalk.  
Mr. Salvage noted that at one point Certified Oil was
willing to participate in the cost for the sidewalks and
Dick Schulze (there representing Certified) said they are
no longer willing to participate.
Mr. Burriss initiated a discussion about bicycle parking.  
Dick Schulze from Certified noted that they would be
installing a bike rack at their site.
Mr. Salvage asked about any Village specifications for
sidewalks and Mr. Dorman said he would check into it.
Mr. Burriss encouraged the Rosses to create as much
separation between the sidewalk and the approach as
possible.  A discussion ensued about how to do that with
the limited amount of green space between the edge of the
approach pavement and the IGA sign.
At the end of the discussion the Planning Commission
members felt as though the Rosses could come back with a
formal application.

Speedway/ SuperAmerica – Continue Discussion of Proposed
Gas Station

    The representatives for Speedway identified
themselves as Jonathan Wocher (Planning Consultant for
McBride Dale Clarion), John Stephens (Project Manager for
Marathon Ashland Oil), and Buck Withers (Design
Consultant).
    Jonathan Wocher started the discussion by
outlining the changes that were made to the site plan
since the last work session.  Mr. Wilkenfeld questioned
the location of the parking spaces and noted that the code
said they must be behind the front facade, and Mr. Wocher
explained that his understanding was that they could be
just behind the front facade line.  
    Buck Withers explained the changes to the design
of the building since the last work session.
    Ms. Lucier noted that the gas station
representatives said this is an unusually large lot for
such a development, and wondered if the proposed store was
also unusually large.  Mr. Stephens said that they have
put similarly sized stations on much smaller lots.  Ms.
Lucier requested that Mr. Stephens provide Mr. Dorman with
a list of locations in Columbus so he can get pictures.  
Ms. Lucier also questioned the number of dispensers and
was told six (6).  Mr. Salvage said from his experience
that the proposed lot is very large for this application
and that the industry is going to a 6 dispenser station.
    Ms. Barsky (an audience member) asked how many
cars could be serviced by the pumps at any given time and
was told twelve (12).  She asked about the size of the
entire tract that Speedway owns and was told 17 acres.  
Ms. Barsky then wanted to know how big the remaining two
buildable lots were.  Mr. Stephens did not know off hand
but promised that information at the next meeting.  Mr.
Salvage requested a site plan showing the entire tract.  
Ms. Barsky asked the representatives if they were aware of
the last architectural plans and said that the company
went through a lot of trouble drawing plans were
architecturally approved.  She concluded her statements by
stating that she just wanted to alert the Speedway
representatives of citizens that are very concerned about
the proposal.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld then wanted to make a general
statement.  He said that he is concerned about the effect
this plan will have on traffic patterns.  There is already
a severe problem on SR-16 and he is not sure if anything
will fix it short of an overpass.  He said that his
concern is that traffic oriented business may exacerbate
the problem.  Mr. Stephens responded by saying that Bob
Evans and Speedway split the cost of road improvements to
South Cherry Valley Road several years ago.  Mr. Salvage
responded that the development would generate very little
destination traffic, but that it would take advantage of
drive-by traffic, and that traffic issues should be
addressed as part of the application.  Mr. Wocher
appreciated Mr. Wilkenfeld’s concern but felt that any
existing deficiencies are not the responsibility of the
land owner.  Mr. Wilkenfeld countered that the Village
Council has to take these things into account for the
safety of the residents.
    Mr. Wocher revisited his concern about placing the
sidewalk on any utility easements and both Mr. Salvage and
Mr. Parris questioned why they pushed it back so far.  Mr.
Salvage suggested placing the sidewalk 5’ off the curb.  
Mr. Wocher cut to the chase and said that they were
concerned about there responsibility for replacing any
damage done to the sidewalk by utility work.  Mr. Salvage
suggested deeding the land to the Village.  Mr. Burriss
concluded the discussion by saying that the problem exists
either way and that the further back the sidewalk is
located the better and that we are all in agreement that
the sidewalk needs to be moved back.
    Mr. Salvage asked for discussion on the
architecture of the building.  Mr. Withers noted that the
sense he received from the last meeting is that they were
getting to close to the Certified Oil expression and that
another expression should be looked at.  Mr. Burriss said
perhaps a marriage of the previous scheme and this new
scheme would be best.  Much discussion ensued about the
windows, the columns on the canopy as well as other
details.
    Mr. Salvage then asked for anymore discussion on
the site plan.  Discussion ensued on issues relative to
the landscaping, size of the building and questions as to
the look of the building based on what the code
specifies.  The discussion ended and Speedway indicated
that they may be ready to submit a formal application and
the Commission said they would be happy to do as many work
sessions as Speedway wanted.

Village Brewing Company, 128 East Broadway – Begin
Discussion of Proposed Kitchen Addition

    Jerry Martin opened the discussion with an outline
of his proposed changes including going from a 1.5 story
kitchen to a full two-story addition.
    Mr. Salvage said that the weakness in the plan is
the stairway in the rear.  Mr. Rader (audience member)
chimed in and said that he is against the stairway in the
back.  Mr. Parris wondered if the stairwell had to be
permanent or if it could a drop down and he was told it
had to be permanent.
    Further discussion ensued on the project, but most
of it centered on trying to relocate the stairwell from
the rear of the building.

Finding of Fact:   MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS OF
FACT FOR A THROUGH D UNDER NEW BUSINESS (DeZwarte,
Newkirk, Parsley, Farley, and Fackler) AND WE FIND THEM
CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS
OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF MAY 9, 2002.  
MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Adjournment:  10:30 p.m.

Next Meetings:      May 28, 2002
            June 10, 2002
Respectfully submitted,
Seth Dorman

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 5/1/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 1, 2002
 Special Meeting on Zoning Ordinances
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:   Jim Gorry, Mike Crites
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Village of Granville – Proposed Zoning Code Changes

    Mr. Dorman said that last year we had some talks
with the Law Director, and recognizing the fact that the
zoning code is a dynamic document, several problems need
to be addressed.  The following comments refer to the
possible changes to the zoning code.
    Law Director Mike Crites said people have
mentioned things in the code they wanted him to look at,
and he enlisted the help of Attorney Jim Gorry, who has a
wealth of experience in zoning ordinances.  He has done a
comprehensive view and will go through it item by item.  
Mr. Crites thinks we have gone too long without an update,
and he suggests that every time Village Council looks at
the Master Plan we ought to look at the zoning code also.  
He suggested doing a review of the Master Plan every three
years.
    Mr. Gorry said the major deficiency was in
enforcement policies, which needed to be simplified and
modernized.  No changes were suggested to development
regulations, but he looked at accessory structures on a
lot, etc.  Other changes were to add definitions or for
simplification.

1133.03:  Purpose.  The Planning Commission members asked
that “within ten days” be added to this paragraph.  In the
past, the Manager could request an appeal; Mr. Gorry is
suggesting he can demand an appeal.  

1135.01:  Definitions.  The sale of alcohol is an
accessory use in a convenience store, for example.
He removed the word “permanent” from definition of
structure.  A shed on blocks will be called a structure
and subject to the zoning restrictions.   A driveway is
not a structure.  A concrete pad upon which a recreational
vehicle rests would be a structure.  A patio could be
treated as an accessory structure.

1137.01:  He has tightened up PUD regulations; the old
process was unusual.  Now a PUD can be subject to a
referendum.

1137.02:  Enforcement.  (c) Is a new hearing procedure.  
(h) We need a way to fine violators.

1137.03:  Tightens “permit” language.

1137.06:  Simplifies Occupancy Permits.  We will change
Zoning & Architectural Permits to Zoning Permits.
1137.09:  Penalties.  Add “per day” after $500.00. This
must be enforced by Mayor’s Court.  The Village Planner
can send a letter telling a person he is in violation of
the zoning code. The violator has (x) number of days to
comply, and if he/she doesn’t, another letter goes out
giving a few more days.  The Law Director then sends a
letter, and if that doesn’t work the violator would be
cited to Mayor’s Court.  We can issue stop construction
order or revoke the permit.  The Village Planner can issue
a citation.  Village Council can suggest an in-house
policy in enforcement.  Mr. Dorman likes to have
flexibility here.

1137.10:  This is to tighten up the zoning code. Due
process applications.  We need to clean up our application
form to be sure the address therein is the legal one to
whom we can write if necessary.
(c) Add “business” after (2).  3 days is even better.

1141.04:  We never had a Village Heritage Overlay
District.  It’s called the Transportation Corridor Overlay
District.

1145.3:  Add “and” after the comma.

1145.04:  Come back to this section for further review.

1147.03:  Impose conditions on a variance.  There are Use
Variances and Area Variances.  Use Variances allow BZBA to
change the use (spot zoning). Area Variances are variances
from development regulations—yard setbacks, lot coverage,
etc.  Use Variances are granted for substantial hardship.  
Eliminate the word “hardship” and add “practical
difficulties.” This section is less strict and allows more
flexibility.  

1157.15:  PUDs should require site development plan in the
village for undeveloped land gained by annexation.  

1157.16:  A hodgepodge, but useful.


Adjournment:  9:30 a.m.
Next Meeting:  May 8, 8 a.m. (Zoning Changes) and May 13
(regular meeting)

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen