Planning Minutes 8/25/03

 GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 25, 2003

 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris
(Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair)
Members Absent: Matt McGowan
Citizens Present: Drew McFarland, Pamela Powell, Sylvia
Braunbeck, Cindy Farley, Mike Frazier, Ruth Owen
Also Present:  Tom Mitchell, Interim Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of August 11, 2003:
 MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR.
BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:  

Edward and Donna Jenkins, 327 N. Pearl St - Modification
    
    Mr. Mitchell said the applicants wish to modify
the approval previously given for a room addition over the
garage. The modification shows a breezeway filled in with
an extension of the kitchen.  The previous plan showed a
room above the garage.  They wish to have a door and
portico on the south side and there are a few other
revisions to windows, etc.
    Mr. Jenkins said Tom Mitchell has been fabulous on
the proposed changes.  (1) On the previous lower level we
wanted to go over the second floor, but this time we will
go from the kitchen to the garage.  Because of that, (2)
the back door will be moved from the breezeway to the side
with small portico to modify the flat side of the
structure.  (3) There will be a gothic window because the
house was originally gothic revival.  For the second floor
addition over the garage there will not be a cathedral
ceiling and no fan light over the windows, but there will
be two sets of French doors over the back of the addition
onto a back patio in the rear   (4) Directly over that
space will be another door for the alleyway for access to
that area.
    The things that are ”iffy” are (1) On left and
rear elevations we have smaller gothic windows if we can
afford them.  If not, they will be like the other windows,
6x6 double hung.  (2) The little cupola over the garage
and whimsy will go in oif we can afford it.

    Mr. Burriss asked about the roof plan and was told
that this time it will come directly across and will not
be evident from the street. Mr. Jenkins said they added to
the plans the suggestions made at the last GPC meeting.  
The clapboard will go all the way to the ground, and all
windows will match front windows of the house.  They want
to restore the house to what it originally was so the
front and back will match.  Mr. Burris thought this plan
was not a whole lot different from the previous one.
    Ms. Lucier asked whether the windows will look
like these drawings, and Mr. Jenkins said they are more
pointed.  Facing front, there are two windows with points
and one on the left. They will be aligned and almost match
the house.
    Mr. Riffle wished there could be a way to break up
the massing, and Mr. Jenkins thought it looked better this
way.  Because of the basement space, it gives the
structure more storage space.    Mr. Burriss showed him
how to break up the massing with a pediment, and Mr.
Jenkins thought it would be more decorative and not as
expensive.
    Mr. Salvage asked about whether the door on the
driveway side with portico will have peaked roof, and Mr.
Jenkins said it will be a flat roof with hidden gutters.
Mr. Salvage asked about the 6” siding and Mr. Jenkins said
it will cover the block.  When we remove siding, we will
have front and back to match.  It will clearly be an
addition but we don’t want it to be glaringly an addition.
    Mr. Burriss asked whether all front windows are
gothic with gables.  He said the applicant has done a good
job so far and he is to be commended, but the existing
porch with round columns was not original.  Think about a
gable over the side door with pediment to make both gables
stronger and carry the shape of the front along the side.  
The roof line is awkward but if we go to triangles, it
becomes stronger.  Emphasize the gothic element, which is
visible from the front.  A pediment roof over the side
door would be reminiscent of the front.
    Mr. Jenkins said they will eventually bring back
the front porch, and he will take Mr. Burriss’ suggestions
into account.  He would like to find some early photos of
the house.
    Mr. Parris noted that the reason this was tabled
was that there was a lot going on and we wanted to be
clear on exactly what we were going with.  There was more
in this application than in the old one.  
    Mr. Salvage said as far as minor vs. major
modification, he sees this as a refinement of what we
approved last time.  The door of the portico is the main
change.  The addition itself is a major issue, and he is
comfortable with its being a minor modification.
    Mr. Burriss believed because of the footprint
being the same and the rest of the changes being minor, it
should be considered a technical correction.  The
applicant should be given option of 6x6 windows instead of
gothic, a cupola, and gothic over door.

MS. LUCIER MOVED THAT THIS IS A MINOR MODIFICATION.  MR.
BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 03-049M WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO PUT A
PEDIMENT ABOVE THE GOTHIC WINDOW ON RIGHT ELEVATION TO
BREAK UP ROOF MASSING; (2) APPLICANT HAS OPTION TO INSTALL
A CUPOLA; (3) APPLICANT HAS THE OPTION TO INSTALL STANDARD
DOUBLE-HUNG WINDOWS ON LEFT AND REAR ELEVATIONS WHERE A
DOOR IS SHOWN; (4) APPLICANT HAS OPTION TO PUT A PEDIMENT
OVER DOOR ON PORTICO ON RIGHT ELEVATION IF HE WISHES.  MS.
LUCIER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Pamela Powel/HER Real Estate, 230 East Broadway- Change of
Use and Parking

    The applicant wishes to change the use of the
first floor from a retail shop to an office.  As a real
estate has less traffic than a gift shop, this change
would be no problem. The problem arises with the parking
area behind the three houses.      Drew McFarland explained
the parking lot design, written, he said, by Brian
Newkirk.    Unfortunately, the figures do not match up
with the number of spaces required for the three
businesses and the two reserved for the First Federal
Savings and Loan.  Brian Newkirk thought the parking could
be undesignated and in common, but that creates
confusion.  Mr. McFarland thought that paving the lot
would increase the lot coverage.  
    GPC needs something in writing that all will share
the parking lot.  Mr. Mitchell said a plot plan is needed
showing what is there and where all the cars can park. Any
decrease in width and length of spaces must be noted, as
well as the space between the two buildings.   
    Mr. McFarland thought Brian Newkirk would have to
remove one tree in the parking lot.
    Mr. Burriss asked whether there is a water
problem, and Mr. McFarland said that with the renovation,
it was taken care of.  One small leak was discovered in
the Newkirk building but it was sealed when the source was
found.
    The change of use cannot be approved without
acceptable parking plans. Even though the real estate
office wants to get started, this will have to go through
BZBA
for variances.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION 03-106. MR. PARRIS  
SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Jenkins) AND WE
FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE
ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF
AUGUST 22, 2003.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: Granville Public Library
    Ruth Owen updated the group on the Library’s
plans.  They want to tear down the Pyle house and move
Sinnett House to the Pyle lot, adding a driveway on the
south.  She showed a picture of how it might look.  The
lot is narrow and they will lop off the kitchen but try to
retain the doctor’s office with ramp, possibly to be used
as a public rest room.  
    The Bicentennial Commission has accepted the
moving project as their legacy and are charged with
raising $150,000.  The Library can offer $25,000.  
Contractors have already been contacted.  The Library
would ‘gift’ Sinnett House to the village. The Pyle land,
owned by the Library, would be leased to the Village.  
    Mike Frazier said they would like to start fund-
raising right now and start construction in January to
connect with events for the Bicentennial.  
    Consensus of the GPC approved tearing down the
Pyle House and moving Sinnett House to the lot.
    Ruth Owen said they would like to keep the tree
but the contractors are afraid that digging will kill the
roots.  It would be better to take it down before it
fell.  

Adjournment:  8:50 p.m.

Next Meetings:      September 8 and 22

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Planning Minutes 8/11/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 11, 2003

 Minutes

Members Present:  Matt McGowan, Mark Parris (Vice Chair),
Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair)
Members Absent: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier
Citizens Present: Stephen Baldwin
Also Present:  Tom Mitchell, Interim Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of July 28, 2003:
Page 2: Mr Salvage wanted to change the sentence under
Other Business:  “The Chairman prepared and
forwarded . . .Seth Dorman, which was adopted by the
Planning Commission.”  MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES
AS CORRECTED; MR. PARRIS  SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:  

Edward and Donna Jenkins, 327 N. Pearl St - Modification
    
    Mr. Mitchell said the applicants wish to modify
the approval previously given for a room addition. This
782 sq.ft addition would include a portico over the door
and relocating a door and placing it between the two
French doors at the bottom of the house. There are several
several discrepancies between this plan and the original
plan.   The applicant was not present at this meeting.  
    
    Mr. Salvage asked whether they will put a window
on the garage and was told Yes.  He thought these plans
seemed vague and need to be more precise.  He suggested
tabling the application.

MR. PARRIS MOVED THAT WE TABLE APPLICATION 03-049M. MR.
RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Salvage noted that we do have a specific amount of
time to act on this, and if the applicant cannot return at
the next meeting, he will have to start over.

Stephen and Rita Baldwin, 229 Summit Street – Enclose
carport

    Mr. Mitchell explained that the applicant wishes
to convert a one-car garage into a three-car garage.  The
two carports presently are located on either side of the
garage.  There will be a pedestrian door on the side.  The
enclosure will match existing siding.  He noted that
neither this garage nor the neighbor’s conform with
setbacks.
    Mr. Baldwin said they want to enhance the property
value and make a better appearance.  The siding and color
will match existing structure.
    Mr. Parris asked whether there is enough swing
room and was told Yes, 8 ½’ and it would be tapered and
flared out a little.
    Mr. Parris noted that when you change a structure,
the grandfathered section is no longer valid.  Mr. Salvage
said all he is doing is adding walls
    Mr. Riffle asked whether a variance is necessary,
and it was determined if the applicant paves the driveway,
a lot coverage variance might be required.  If you do pave
it, Mr. Salvage stated, you will need to bring in a
drawing showing you will not exceed the 50 per cent lot
coverage.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-104. WITH THE NOTE THAT THE
SIDING WILL MATCH EXISTING SIDING ON THE GARAGE AND THE
ENTIRE STRUCTURE WILL MATCH EXISTING COLOR.  IF THE
APPLICANT WISHES TO PAVE THE DRIVEWAY IN FRONT, WE ASK
THAT HE PROVIDE THE VILLAGE PLANNER WITH A PLAN TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE ADDITION ADHERES WITH VILLAGE REGULATIONS.
MR. RIFFLE  SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Baldwin) AND WE
FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE
ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF
AUGUST 8, 2003.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Business:  Mr. Riffle wanted the Village Planner to
review what we decided regarding on the color of  B.
Hammond’s storage garage
    Mr. Salvage remarked on the unsightliness of the
Aladdin sidewalk sign.

Adjournment:  7:55 p.m.

Next Meetings:      August 25 (Mr. McGowan will be absent)
and September 8  
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Planning Minutes 7/28/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 28, 2003

 Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Matt McGowan,
Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage
(Chair)
Members Absent: none
Citizens Present:  Brian Corbett, Leon Habegger, Bob
Gerano, Jim & Jodi Schmidt, Kay Bork, Collette Moore
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner; Tom Mitchell,
Interim Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of July 14, 2003:
Page 2, Ms. Lucier wanted to add in middle of page:  “Ms.
Lucier thought the intention is to make sure the primary
structure remains primary, and she liked the draft
language as proposed.”
Mr. Salvage asked to have the following sentence the 12th
line up from bottom of Page 3:  “…is not fair.  It is
agreed that the restrictions and guidelines in the zoning
code should be reviewed at a later date after a new
planner is up to speed.”
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED;  MR.
BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:  

Jim and Jodi Schmidt, 218 East Maple Street - Fence
    
    Mr. Mitchell said that the applicants wish to (1)  
install new gothic top concave cedar picket fence in the
side of the yard, and in the rear to replace lattice fence
with the same fencing, 6’ high.  (2) Black vinyl louvered
shutters will be added to house and garage.
Mr. Schmidt showed an actual shutter sample.  It will be
outside the trim, which is 4” on the side and 2” in the
rear, added Ms. Schmidt.   At the highest point the fence
will be 42” high, and there will be a gate

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-088 WITH THE CONDITION THAT
THE FENCE BE PAINTED WHITE AND THAT THE VINYL SHUTTERS
WILL BE PER SAMPLE PROVIDED TONIGHT.  MR. BURRISS
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.    

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1830 Newark-Granville Road -
Canopy

    Mr. Mitchell explained that the church wants to
add a canopy to the front of the church, following the
plans GPC approved in 1991. A cap will extend over what’s
there now and will be full width and extend out toward the
drive toward the grass island and cover the driveway,
making a drive-through.  It will not change the parking
configuration.
    Mr. Burriss asked whether the current octagon
detail will be used in the new portico, for this one
breaks up the expanse of gable and it would be worth
repeating.  The representative replied that Yes, it will
be there; it is just not in the plans.  
    Mr. Burriss then asked about downspouts and was
told that they will be right behind the car pictured in
the photo at the corner and will go into tiling. The
gutter color will match trim.
    Mr. Parris asked about lighting and was told it
was on page A-4 and lights will be recessed underneath
portico.  One light will be in the ceiling and be on a
timer.  They will try to incorporate the old lantern
lights but if they do not use them, they will leave one
light on underneath. Mr. Burriss would like the Planner to
approve the amount of light the lights will give out, and
Mr. Parris said the person selling the lights should be
able to give that information.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-089 WITH THE CONDITION THAT
THE LIGHTING BE APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  WE WOULD
LIKE THE OCTAGON ADDED.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED AND MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Public Library, 217 East Broadway - Sidewalk Sign

    Mr. Mitchell said they have applied for a plastic
and vinyl sidewalk sign that conforms with regulations.  
It will be black and white and will have a removable
section in which to insert special events.
    Kay Bork said they were going to place it in the
front of the statue, but could either be on the step or in
the main sidewalk.  GPC members would rather not have it
in the sidewalk.  Ms. Lucier asked why don’t they place it
in the alley and Ms. Bork said they are trying to
encourage newcomers to attend events.  The established
residents already know what’s going on, so the alley is a
less viable space.
    Ms. Bork said it will be used about once a month,
placing it out a week before the event.  
    Mr. Salvage said three colors are allowed and
asked whether this includes the changeable area.  
Discussion arose about this issue, for the library would
like to use colorful posters publicizing children’s
events.  It seems we have allowed more than three colors
in the past, i.e., when the bookstore wants to feature a
colorful book jacket.  Ms. Lucier is not concerned with
what the library puts up but is concerned about setting a
precedent.  The Village Planner will look up what was said
in the Minutes for the Reader’s Garden sign.  Mr. Salvage
does not think more than three colors would require a
variance.
    
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-090 WITH THE CONDITION THAT
IT NOT BE PLACED ON THE MAIN SIDEWALK.  MR. BURRISS
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dave Black, 203 West Broadway - Enclosure

    Mr. Mitchell said the applicant proposes to
enclose the portico attached to the garage and add another
portico off what would now be storage area, smaller but
redone with columns to go from where they are to the new
section.  The siding is to be board and bead.  The garage
is nonconforming in side setback, and the new part would
be sized to conform. Pillars will be relocated straight
out from where they are.  
    Bob Gerano, Builder, said they will match existing
siding and roofing with tongue and groove and put in a
square smoothed-out column where round ones are now.  It
well have some reveal.  The roof will extend over the
three columns.  The trim will be extended and will match.  
When asked about drainage, he said this is a very small
area and should present no problems.
    Mr. Burriss asked about the window and was told
they will put in the old window sash to break up the
look.  They could put the door on the same side as the
garage so as to not disturb the patio and move the window
to the other side.  The door will be on the east side of
the garage   GPC discussed the window situation and it was
agreed to put the window centered on the north side and
door on the east side    
    
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:  (1) NEW SIDING WILL MATCH EXISTING GARAGE AND
ENTIRE STRUCTURE TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH; (2) WEST SIDE OF
NEW ADDITION WILL BE 10’ FROM PROPERTY LINE; (3) ROOF
DETAIL WILL MATCH EXISTING PORTICO; (4) PEDESTRIAN DOOR
WILL BE LOCATED ON EAST SIDE; AND (5) WINDOW WILL BE
PLACED ON CENTER SECTION ON THE NORTH SIDE.  MR. RIFFLE
SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Salvage wanted to note that ordinarily we would not
accept such an incomplete application and drawing, but
since this is such a small addition, we will let it go.  
Mr. Gerano thanked him.

Brian and Nora Corbett, 117 South Prospect Street – Fence

    Mr. Mitchell said the applicants are replacing the
privacy fence exactly and installing a skate board
structure, which does not conform with the side yard
setback.  Mr. Dorman noted that the skateboard facility
does not contribute to the historical character of the
Village District.
    Mr. Corbett stated that the fence is already done,
but since it is an exact duplicate of the old fence, he
thought he did not need approval.  It will be cedar,
stained red.
    Ms. Lucier asked about the poles in the photograph
and was told they will be trimmed down to 6’.
    Mr. Salvage asked where the fence goes and was
told it goes along the back and replaces the old one
exactly.  
    The group wanted more information about the
skateboard, and Mr. Corbett said it is not set in the
ground as a permanent structure and will be taken in for
the winter.  When Mr. Parris asked about the noise, Mr.
Corbett said he would address any complaints that arise.  
    Ms. Lucier noted they are in the middle of a
commercial district with a parking lot and a garage on
either side.  Mr. Corbett said it will be screened,
    Mr. Burriss has no problem with the ramp, knowing
what a good job the applicant has done so far, but he is
concerned about the basket weave fence, which is not
complementary to the house, and hoped it would be removed.

    MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE 030-092 WITH THE
STIPULATION THAT THE EXTRA TALL POSTS ON THE ON THE
SKATEBOARD BE SHORTENED TO MATCH THE FENCE.  THE APPLICANT
NEEDS APPROVAL FROM BZBA FOR VARIANCE.

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR ITEMs A,B,C,D,E 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 JUL7 25,
2003.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Other Business:  The chairman has prepared and forwarded
to members a proposed resolution of thanks to Seth Dorman,
which was adopted by the Planning Commission and it is
attached herewith.

Adjournment:          8:30 p.m.
Next Meetings:          August 11 (Ms. Lucier will be
absent)
August 25 (Mr. McGowan will be absent)
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Planning Minutes 7/14/03

 GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 14, 2003
 Amended Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Matt McGowan,
Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage
(Chair)
Members Absent: None
Citizens Present:  John Compton, Scott Walker
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of June 23, 2003: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:  

First Federal Savings, 126 North Prospect Street –
Building Renovations
    
    {Mr. Riffle recused himself from this application.}
Mr. Dorman said that for their renovations, the bank wants
to upgrade the exterior and give the building a face
lift.  The roof would be reconfigured and shingled with
dimensional asphalt shingles, and three dormers with real
windows will be added.  There will be a recessed porch and
a little patio with landscaping. The brick on three sides
will match the existing and they will paint the east
side.  The footprint will remain the same.  The off-site
parking spaces were approved by the BZBA last Thursday.
Scott Walker said after the work session, they changed the
exterior design of the second floor and added cedar siding
on the south, and wood trim, including wood shutters.  
There will be a garden wall of brick where the kids can
eat their ice cream.  He showed brick, shingle and paint
color samples.  The second floor is for storage.  Lights
will be added in the recessed porch, and a pair of
decorative light fixtures will be on either side of the
south door.
    John Compton said the rendering does not show the
actual color of the sign. They will come back later with a
sign application.  It will be a 12 square foot sign, with
metal posts on each side, made of wrought iron.  It will
be smaller than Unizan’s.  They will have lights that
shine up from the ground.  
    Mr. Salvage thought the faux windows on the south
side really improve the appearance.  

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-080.  MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED 4 TO 0 WITH 1
ABSTENTION (MR. RIFFLE).    

Work Session:  Village Ordinance Changes

    Mr. Dorman and the Law Director have been trying
to make some major changes and updating the language of
the document, and they are looking for GPC’s comments at
this time before the changes go to BZBA and Village
Council.  A couple of statements have been added to aid
the Village Planner in his work, among them the ability to
revoke a permit or issue a stop order.  
    Page 13.  Ms. Lucier was concerned about the
distinction between ‘occupancy’ and ‘use.’  Mr. Dorman
said that after he goes out and inspects a new single
family residence, and finds it in order; he will issue a
Certificate of Occupancy.  This is different from a
building permit.  A building has to be finished before it
can be sold.  Ms. Lucier wondered if it is appropriate for
a building to be used before it is finished, and this is
something the Law Director will think about.
    The group agreed that the Law Director should look
at this section.
    Page 21.  Mr. Salvage suggested changing the
word ‘predicament’ in line 25 to ‘situation.’   Mr. Dorman
said the language comes down from the Supreme Court.    
However, the GPC recommended changing it to ‘situation. ‘
    Page 23, Line 15 and 18. Mr. Salvage questioned
the need for sections (a) and (b), and Mr. Parris thought
we shouldn’t be making restrictions.  Ms. Lucier thought
the intention is to make sure the primary structure
remains primary, and she liked the draft language as
proposed.  We have lot coverage restrictions now, added
Mr. Parris, and people will still need to come before us
for approval.  Mr. Dorman said lot coverage only applies
to the first floor of a garage.  It’s a policy decision.  
Do we want large garage structures in town?  There are
other districts where big barns would fit in. It’s hard to
visualize massing from a picture.
    By a 3-2 vote, the Planning Commission is
recommending the sections will deleted.  
    Page 23, Line 28. Mr. Salvage asked whether this
is a problem, and Mr. Dorman said there have been problems
where projects are under construction and builders leave
junk around, but they usually keep supplies in their
trucks.  If they are using the supplies, it is not a
problem.    Ms. Lucier said if it is not a problem, it is
not a hardship.  Mr. Parris wondered how one could enforce
this evenhandedly.  
    Page 23, Line 35.  Again, Mr. Salvage questioned
storing things outside.  This is for the yard, replied Mr.
Dorman.  People don’t like to see ‘stuff’ in the yard but
it’s OK in the driveway.  Mr. Parris said PUDs have
covenants and people are aware of restrictions when they
buy, but adding restrictions after the fact is not fair.
Mr. McGowan pointed out that property owners are limited
by zoning restrictions regarding these items already. It’s
a problem of interpretation and difficult to administer
evenhandedly and an enforcement nightmare.  Mr. Dorman
replied that it has not been a big issue; you have to make
some judgment calls.
      Page 33, Line 32.  Mr. Salvage said we don’t want
to force out businesses who want to build.  Drive-throughs
should be permitted.  
    Page 35, Line 28.  Consensus agreed that ‘shall be
provided’ should be changed to ‘may be required to
provide’  Ms. Lucier wondered what a ‘major street’ was,
and Mr. Dorman replied that the Comprehensive Plan has
provided a roadway classification system, but it is not
consistent with ODOT’s roadway classification system.
    The group agreed unanimously to change the
language.  
    Page 35, Line 43.  Mr. Dorman wants to remove any
reference to PCD from this PUD section and add them to the
PCD section.  Also referenced on Page 36.  The Law
Director will look at Pages 35 and 36.  
    Page 37, Lines 5, 6, 7, and 18.  Mr. Salvage
thinks this is unrealistic and Mr. Parris agrees.  Mr.
Dorman said there are no longer standards or requirements,
just guidelines. If this is a real issue, GPC needs to
take time and look at the guidelines, but he does not
think you can accomplish this now.   PDDs are about
flexibility.  Mr. Salvage wants to remove this section and
let the applicant come in.
    Page 38, Line 34.  Mr. Salvage said there are
floodplain guidelines, and why can’t a person fill in a
floodplain?  Ms. Lucier did not think GPC should be
discussing these policy issues.  We should make
recommendations within the scope of the GPC.
    Page 38, Line 47. Mr. Salvage wondered why parking
is limited to behind buildings.
    Page 39, Line 1.  Mr. Salvage thought this item
unnecessarily strict.  Mr. Dorman said people don’t like
to see a sea of asphalt.  It’s an aesthetic thing and a
safety thing.
    Page 43, Mr. Salvage finds this page unnecessarily
strict.
    Page 44, Materials.  Mr. Salvage thinks chimneys
can be of other materials.
    Pag3, 45, Mr. Salvage does not think drive-
throughs should be prohibited in the front.
    Page 45, Line 18., Mr. Salvage wondered why
garages may only be 9’ wide.
Mr. Burris wanted to invite Keith Myers to be involved in
any future discussions in terms of changes to the
development guidelines for the Planned Development
Districts.
    It was agreed that the restrictions and guidelines
of the zoning code should be reviewed and updated after
the new planner is up to speed.

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING
OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER NEW BUSINESS (1ST FEDERAL) AND WE
FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE
ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF
JULY 9, 2003.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Business:  The chairman referred to the memo from
Seth Dorman regarding his resignation.  He offered
congratulations on the new position and said it is with
deep regret that we will lose him.  At the next meeting he
will present a resolution of commendation.  ”You are the
best Planner we have had and we wish you well and Good
Luck!”  Seth said. “This is a bittersweet decision, but
the opportunity is too great to be passed up.  You all
will be missed.”

Adjournment:  9:05 p.m.
Next Meetings:     July 28 and August 11
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Planning Minutes 6/23/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 23, 2003
 Minutes

Members Present:   Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle,
Richard Salvage (Chair).  Matt McGowan was welcomed as the
Village Council representative
Members Absent: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier
Citizens Present:  Mark Clapsadle, Bob Gerano, David
Bussan, Tracy Smith
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of May 28, 2003: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of June 9, 2003: MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Old Business:  

David Bussan, 420 East Broadway – Deck Extension

    Mr. Dorman said this is a modification of an
approval granted January 13, 2002.  The request is to
extend the deck from 8’x12’ to 12’x19’.  The deck will be
wrapped with panels of siding and painted to match the
house siding and help to blend the deck with the house.  
There will be a stairway to access the deck from the back
yard. A variance is required for side yard setback.  
    Bob Gerano, contractor, stated that the
encroachment would be no deeper than on the current plan.  
    David Bussan said there is no problem with the
east neighbor, and the west side is a rental property.    
Mr. Dorman said the all neighbors within 200’ would be
notified of the variance hearing.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO FIND THAT APPLICATION #02-002M IS A
MINOR MODIFICATION.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-002M AS
PRESENTED, SUBJECT TO THE BZBA’S APPROVAL OF THE
VARIANCE.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.    



New Business:

Clifton Crais, 234 North Pearl Street – Garage

    Mr. Dorman said a year ago the applicant got
approval for work on the rear of the house, and now he is
requesting a detached 1 1/2 car, board and batten garage
with asphalt shingles on the roof. There would be
galvanized gutters and several windows and a pedestrian
door.  A variance will be required for the side yard
setback, the garage is planned to be located 3’ from the
property line rather than the required 10’.  
    Bob Gerano, contractor said this drawing is very
similar to one the GPC approved at 436 North Granger
Street.  Mr. Crais wants to construct a similar structure
with a steep roof.  He needs the space to make the turn.  
    Mr. Salvage noted that most of the garages in that
area are very close to the lot line.  
    Mr. Riffle asked whether the project is far enough
from the tree to not damage roots and was told yes.
    The group had problems determining the
orientation, and Mr. Salvage suggested tabling since this
plan is lacking a site plan, property line definition,
location of trees, and elevations with correct references,
curb cuts, location of utility pole and driveway, and
exact size of garage.  Mr. Gerano agreed to table the
application.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #03-066 PENDING
SUBMISSION OF FINAL PROJECT DETAILS.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
      
Broadway Deli, 126 East Broadway – Signage

Mr. Dorman said the application is for temporary sidewalk
café signs.  The applicant would like to put out her metal
tables and chairs, but the chairs say “Coca-Cola,” and
therefore must be approved by the Planning Commission.  
Each sign is 0.19 square feet, totaling 1.9 square feet of
signage. The drawing submitted indicates the location of
the tables and chairs in accordance with the ordinances.
    Tracy Smith added that they want four planters to
delineate the café perimeter.  She has no pictures of the
chairs.    
    Mr. Riffle requested that the chairs are kept in a
straight line so it’s easy for people to walk through the
area.  Planters have to be removed when the café is taken
down for the year.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-069 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.


Scott and Anne Gillie, 1075 Newark-Granville Road -
Addition

Mr. Dorman said the Gillies are requesting a 600 square
foot, first floor addition and dormers would be added to
the second floor, opening up additional square footage on
that level.  Variances are necessary for both side
setbacks.
Mark Clapsadle said it’s hard to calculate square footage
of the dormers.  The ridge of the dormers would not extend
above the ridge of the house, and they will maintain the
Greek Revival style.  Encroachment into the side yard
setback is hard to avoid in this open space district
because the lot is so narrow and the setback requirement
is 50’. The existing structure already encroaches into the
setback, and they are not encroaching any further.
Mr. Clapsadle added that there is a screen porch on the
back, and the addition will be the same depth as the
porch.  The dormers will bring the back into the egress
code.  Originally they were going to add 4 bedrooms, but
they have scaled back their plans.    
    Mr. Riffle thinks the plan is better this way.  
    
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-070 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:  The work session on the final draft of the
Zoning Ordinance changes was postponed until the full
membership was present.

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Bussan) AND ITEMS
A,B, AND C. UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Crais, Broadway Deli, and
Gillie) AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT
SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE
PLANNER’S MEMO OF JUNE 20, 2003.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  8:12 p.m.
Next Meetings:    July 14 and July 28

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen