Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 3/10/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 10, 2003
 Amended Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main,
Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage
(Chair)  
Members Absent: None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Present:    Steven Stein, Brian Koker, Robert
Kennedy, Thomas Lawyer, Dave Rutledge, Barbara Hammond
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
    
Minutes of February 24, 2003:   Correct spelling of Mr.
Burriss’ name on Page 2, halfway down.  MR. PARRIS MOVED
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MR BURRISS SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Granville Lumber Company, 401 South Main Street – Addition
and Exterior Remodeling

    Mr. Dorman said the applicants wish to add 268
square feet to the present office space and to replace all
the windows on the primary building.  Inside remodeling
will make the sales area larger and relocate the
restrooms.  The warehouse building will receive new siding
and windows; in addition he noted that the plans show the
doors on the south side of this building to be removed.
    Mr. Lawyer said the purpose is to dress up and
clean up the building.  The little dock on the west will
be changed to provide more show room and counter space.  
The wall will be moved out 7’.  They will retain the dock
and the main entrance.  There will be a covered porch on
south side, and pushed out 5’.  
    GPC members had no problems with the project,
which will enlarge and enhance the facility.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-011.  MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

B. Hammond Interiors, 123 East Broadway – Storage Barn

Mr. Dorman said in the rear the applicant wants a 10’x20’
wooden storage barn to be used for light furniture and
accessories.  A variance will be needed for the side yard
setback.
Barbara Hammond added that they have adequate parking
space.  She is hoping to make the shed permanent. The
building is pre-built and sits on skids.  It will be
painted and have a double door.  Her desire is to rent
it.  They now have off-site storage. Their back room is so
small that they need more room.  
In answer to a question by Mr. Riffle about security, Ms.
Hammond said she has lighting in back of the store and
feels that having the Police Department two doors away
acts as a deterrent to crime.   She will put some mesh
wiring over the windows, and the double doors will be
padlocked.  
Mr. Burriss asked about location of the dumpster and the
fact that the building cannot be pushed against the bank
building.  He fears that area might be a collector of
trash, but she does not want to have trash back there
either. Big O is careful to pick up dropped trash.   Mr.
Burriss would not encourage this barn for a long-term
solution.  
Mr. Riffle asked about its color and was told it will
probably be white.  Because of the improvements B. Hammond
has made to the interior, the landlord will replace some
fascia and potholes and resurface parking area. If he adds
window boxes, Ms. Hammond will add the flowers.
Mr. Burriss asked if the end wall will be sided, and she
said yes.  The company provides shelving and they will add
some more.     
Mr. Salvage suggested that when the final color is
selected, he would like to see that approved by the
Village Planner.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-012, WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITION:  (1) THAT THE APPLICANT CONSULTS WITH
THE VILLAGE PLANNER WHEN THE FINAL COLOR OF THE STRUCTURE
IS DETERMINED.   MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Welsh Hills School – Addition

    Steven Stein said tonight the architects wish to
update GPC on progress.  He showed the requested site plan
showing neighboring buildings on a drawing and a model of
the school, existing and planned. The model is primarily
for fund-raising, but they were concerned about the height
of the building and wanted to see how it will look.  The
great room will block the majority of the building.  A
landscape plan, approved by Tree and Landscape Commission,
was also presented
    The original plan was to have brick pavers with
grass, but they decided to forego grass because of
irrigation concerns.  Engineers have no problem with
drainage.  They hope to submit the application by the end
of April and will show more details with the entire lot on
a drawing of the whole site.
Mr. Parris asked about the wood-belt buffer and Mr. Stein
said they do not own the entire buffer of trees.  Mr.
Parris thought if things change in other properties it
might affect the view of the school from the road, but Mr.
Stein said they don’t want to block the horizon, and the
landscaping plan shows their intention
and will add trees as necessary.  
    Ms. Lucier noted that when we talked before,
people liked the idea of the barn and wondered whether
that was still an option.  Mr. Stein said this would be a
barn style house, probably board and batten, and
proportional to the school building.  They considered
silos but found they would be too costly. Mr. Stein said
they would add cupolas and that really sets off the
building more like a barn.  In the wintertime it will be
visible from Rt. 16, but they will be adding trees.  
    Mr. Burriss asked about lighting and was told they
don’t really want to put a sea of lighting but prefer more
minimum bollard level lights for security, but on special
occasions the lot will be more heavily lit.  Mr. Parris
asked him to match the lights in front.
    Mr. Burriss asked about trash and learned there is
a dumpster there now.  Mr. Burriss would like to see
screening of the dumpster and air conditioning units   
    The architects are looking at dimensional shingle
roofing material, or slate roof, asphalt.  The lower
roofs, said Mr. Burriss, can be standing seam metal, and
Mr. Stein said currently everything is standing seam.  
There will be a more sloping roof over the porch.   
    Mr. Stein noted in passing that the school added a
greenhouse.  He said they want to break ground in the
fall.  He will bring in a site plan with the application
and plan screening of the dumpster.

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR
ITEMS A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM
CONSISTENT WITH  THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS
OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF MARCH 6, 2003.

Adjournment:  8:20 p.m.
Next Meetings:    NO MEETING ON MARCH 24.  Next meeting is
April 14.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 2/24/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 24, 2003
Amended Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Richard Main, Mark Parris
(Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair); Tim Riffle was
welcomed as the new representative from the School Board
Members Absent:  Barb Lucier
Citizens Present:  David Meleca, Thomas Morano, Father Enke
Also Present:  Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None

Election of Officers:  MR. BURRISS NOMINATED RICHARD
SALVAGE AS CHAIR AND MARK PARRIS AS CO-CHAIR.  MR. RIFFLE
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
    
Minutes of February 10, 2003:   MR. PARRIS MOVED TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR BURRISS SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Sessions:  

St. Edward’s Catholic Church, 785 Newark-Granville Road –
Sanctuary Addition and Site Access Modification
    
David Meleca, Architect, described the plans to build a
new sanctuary and:  (1) Relocate access road and create a
loop road around the church; (2) move existing rectory;
(3) demolish two homes on church property; (4) turn
existing church into gathering space and add amenities to
it; (5) add parking spaces to accommodate 800 cars. In the
future they would like to add an outdoor arcade if funds
allow.  Mr. Meleca described in more detail the plans and
materials and said the footprint will be small.  They will
be adding porches to the existing church.    
They will be encroaching a little bit into the 100’
setback for TCOD and this would require a variance.  
However, they need to site the addition so that the
central beams will line up.  Other houses on the street
are closer than 100’ back.   A second variance is required
for height; they plan a 57’ peak, whereas the maximum is
30’ in this zoning district.  In the Institutional
district the maximum height is determined by GPC and the
fire chief.  The addition will be below grade of road.  
Lot coverage needs to be examined more carefully.
Mr. Salvage asked about their timetable, and Mr. Meleca
said they are working hard on the architectural and are
moving along with fund-raising. Under SRD, these variances
must go to BZBA. GPC can only approve variances for signs
and variances in the TCOD.  Mr. Salvage asked if they
considered rezoning to Institutional, and Mr. Parris said
that, considering the different variances required,
Institutional zoning would allow ordinances more
appropriate for what they have in mind. Mr. Dorman said
this would require a hearing at Village Council.  The
whole process could take two or three months.  
Looking at Paragraph One above, (1) members thought
relocation of access road would be no problem.  In fact,
it would simplify the traffic flow.  (2) Moving the
rectory (3) and demolishing the houses would be no
problem.  Joe Hickman has to approve demolitions.  (4)
More details are required, showing location of nearby
houses, signs and lighting.  (5) SRD does not mention
parking requirements in the code.
The procedure for rezoning:   (1) Check with Law Director
to ensure this is not spot zoning; (2) File an application
for rezoning, probably for March 24; (3) Set Village
Council hearing for April 2; (4) public hearing likely on
April  16; (5) a month after approval, rezoning goes into
effect.    GPC could meanwhile vote pending subsequent
rezoning.  
Mr. Parris asked whether neighbors have been consulted,
and Mr. Meleca said yes.  Their only reservation would be
for commercial rezoning.  One neighbor asked about the
split-rail-fence issue, and Mr. Meleca told him they have
not discussed this yet.    Neighbors don’t want parking in
front of the church.  
Mr. Burriss brought up some architectural concerns,
congratulating them on their excellent design.  He asked
about any marking of the crossing.  There is a lantern on
the existing church and he would like to see some sort of
demarcation of the cross or cupola on the larger building
too. It is missing its finial.  Other churches have them.  
The cross is the most celebrated thought.  What you are
proposing is leading in a new direction.  What the
Catholic Church needs is “continuity of language of
relationship structures.”  Some elements here remind him
of the capital building at Williamsburg, i.e., lanterns.  
Mr. Meleca said they looked at small country churches with
shutters and large windows and the committee liked the
rural character.  He said they wanted a cupola but it
would need support and it changed everything to give such
support
Mr. Riffle liked to see a church going back to classical
design.
Mr. Parris wished them luck on their $4 million campaign.

Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan

    Mr. Main promised Village Council he would push
this along.  V.C. wants to select a committee to have more
discussion and take GPC input into account.  Then there
would be a conference committee of Township and
Village.    Mr. Parris thought the biggest burdens are on
the Township and the school district; therefore it would
be appropriate to have our School Board member be on
board. Mr. Riffle was agreeable to this suggestion.  GPC
members will e-mail Mr. Riffle their concerns with the
Comprehensive Plan.  
    Mr. Main said V.C.’s big concern was attracting
businesses and to create an atmosphere where businesses
can be successful.  Several sections in the Plan seemed to
be a bit anti-commercial.  Commercial is essential to
relieve the burdens on the homeowner.
    Mr. Salvage noted that many developers are not
looking at Granville, since they are not willing to fight.
Support systems are crucial for businesses and residences,
and Mr. Riffle mentioned Easton and the once-successful
Continent.  The hamlet concept invites mixed uses.
    Please send your concerns to Mr. Riffle.

Other Comments:  Mr. Dorman showed a picture of the neon
sign proposed by the new frozen custard shop on North
Prospect.  Members didn’t object to the neon, but they
thought the name Whit’s could be improved or removed.  A
neon sign must be ‘artful.’  We need to look at his total
sign package.

Adjournment:  8:50 p.m.
Next Meetings:    March 10 and March 24
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 2/10/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 10, 2003
 Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main,
Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair)
Members Absent:  None
Citizens Present:  Bruce Westall, Laura Andujar  
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Election of Officers was postponed until the School Board
member is selected.

Minutes of January 27, 2002:   MR. BURRISS MOVED TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:  

Reader’s Garden, 143 East Broadway – Sidewalk Sign
    
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants would like
approval for a sidewalk sign, 8.48 square feet, white
background with black lettering and red and green design,
with space for ads on the blackboard and space for hand-
lettered ads on bottom half (blue on the displayed
board).  The sign was used in their previous location on
Elm Street.  Variances are needed for maximum number of
colors and maximum size. The sign must be taken inside
after business hours.    
Bruce Westall stated that they have to reapply, but he was
told Reader’s Garden never got approval for the former
location.  Since the sign is too big, he thought that
building a new sign would be easier than sawing off the
side of this one.  The present ground sign is only three
colors.  The Law Director wanted to give some thought as
to whether white was a color, and Mr. Salvage suggested
tabling the application.  
Mr. Burriss would be more comfortable with allowing this
to be temporarily used and using the new sign with
definite location determined.  Mr. Westall placed this
sign in a spot consistent with distances of other signs on
the sidewalk.  He doesn’t want to return here and will do
what we request.
Mr. Burriss noted that in the past the percentage of copy
that was consistent and the percentage that was changeable
were limited.  Mr. Dorman does not think it appropriate
for any sidewalk signs to have posters added to them.  

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-006 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THAT THE SIGN WILL BE PER THE
CODE IN SIZE AND THE NUMBER OF ALLOWED COLORS WITHIN (60)
DAYS.  THE APPLICANT CAN CHECK WITH THE VILLAGE PLANNER
FOR FINAL APPROVAL ON THE COLORS SINCE THERE IS SOME
QUESTION AS TO WHETHER WHITE AND BLACK ARE CONSIDERED
COLORS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SIGN CODE.  WE ALSO
RECOMMEND TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER THAT THE READERS’ GARDEN
BE ABLE TO USE THEIR EXISTING SIGN UNTIL THEIR NEW SIGN IS
MADE OR UNTIL THEY HAVE THIS SIGN MODIFIED TO BE COMPLIANT
WITH THE CODE; AND (2) THAT THE APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR
THE SIGN WOULD BE BACK TOWARD THE BRICK AREA NEAR THE
STEPS OF THE READERS’ GARDEN WITH FINAL DETERMINATION TO
BE MADE BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  

Village of Granville, 141 East Broadway – Exterior
Renovations

    Mr. Dorman stated that for the next phase of
improvements to the Village Hall, the applicants wish to:  
(1) install a railing around the top of the roof for
screening mechanicals and to enhance the appearance of the
building; (2) install new front entry door for the hall
and the Reader’s Garden; (3) replace picture windows and
add light fixtures; (4) replace wrought iron railings.
    Mr. Burriss, who helped with the design, said they
wanted the building to have more of a municipal
appearance.  The proposed door is more of a commercial
door than a residential door but is fiberglass to look
like wood for less cost and maintenance.  His thought
earlier was to add flagpoles and the village seal above
the awning in the center.  He added that Mr. Dorman should
be recognized for all the time he has spent on this
project.
    Laura Andujar, Architect, added more descriptive
detail for the plan.   

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-009 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THAT THE FINAL DETAILS ARE TO
BE APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER UPON CONSULTATION WITH
COMMISSIONER BURRISS; AND (2) THAT THE APPLICANT CAN
REPLACE OR VISUALLY ALTER THE EXISTING WINDOWS ON EITHER
SIDE OF THE FRONT ENTRANCE TO ACHIEVE THE SAME LOOK.  MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:  The scheduled work session on the Granville
Comprehensive Plan will be postponed until the new
Commission member is appointed.  Mr. Main said Village
Council will discuss this next Wednesday, and they hope to
have GPC identify areas where they feel that input is
necessary and those areas that the GPC does not deal with,
i.e., Township issues. A special meeting may be held.

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR ITEMS A AND B 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 JANUARY
7, 2003.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  8:40 p.m.
Next Meetings:   February 24 and March 10
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 1/27/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 27, 2003
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main,
Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl
Wilkenfeld
Members Absent:  None
Citizens Present:  Mark Clapsadle, Scott Gillie, Karen and
Doug Frasca
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of January 13, 2002:   MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:  

Karen & Doug Frasca, 123 West Broadway – Door Replacement
    
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants wish to replace
the deteriorated garage door with an overhead flush door
with electric opener.  The garage is not visible from the
street.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-004 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

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

    Mr. Dorman stated that the applicants wish to
    (1) add a second-floor addition; (2) add a
mudroom/and dinette; (3) make a new rear entry and porch;
and (4) replace existing columns on the front porch to two-
story columns to accommodate the second-story addition.   
A variance will be required for the side yard setback.
    Mr. Clapsadle, Architect, provided a historical
background, saying the Gillies bought the house, which was
built around 1928 as part of an open space district owned
by the Jones family.  The Gillies are the fourth owners.  
They came to the architect with a need for an additional
bedroom and a desire to modernize and update the house.  
They tried to revere the existing house and maintain the
architectural pattern.  He led the group through the very
thorough site plans and explained where the various
changes will be made.  There are more trees on the lot,
but they have been omitted in the interest of providing a
clear design.  
    Mr. Salvage asked about the side yard setback
required, and Mr. Clapsadle said about 60% of the house is
already in the side yard setback.    The new encroachment
is minimal.  
    Mr. Wilkenfeld stated this was the best
application package we have ever received, and they are
saving the general design of the house.  No one will see
it from the rear, but he asked whether the neighbors have
been consulted about the plans.  The architect said they
have been and have no objections. Mr. Parris added that
the applicants have done a remarkable job of keeping the
character of the original house and doing what they need
for added space. Mr. Salvage said the plans were very well
prepared.  Ms. Lucier also thinks they have done the best
they could do to give added space.  Personally, she feels
sad about changing the scale of the house but “I guess you
do too.”
    Mr. Burriss wanted to compliment the applicants
for the package. This is one of the best examples of
updating a house we have seen; it is in full sympathy with
the original intent of the building and still keeps its
architecture.  It would be nice to keep this set of plans
to act as models for other applicants.   The site plan is
very helpful, and the drawing showing nearby areas is also
helpful.   The details are good, and he wants to ask a
couple of questions about the façade:  (1) The horizontal
wing across the front façade and (2) grid pattern and
design of  the French doors   Mr. Clapsadle said the plan
was to hide the difference between the new and the old
entry.  They will save the existing cornices to help
disguise the old and new designs.  The new door is wider
than the French windows and this design will blend in
well.   The new door will have a removable screen.  Asking
about the offset in the rear of the house, Mr. Burriss was
told that yes, the addition would be offset about 8’.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-003 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR ITEMS A AND B 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 JANUARY
24, 2003.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  8:00 p.m.
Next Meetings:   February 10 and 24

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 1/13/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 13, 2003
 Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris
(Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Richard Main
Citizens Present:  Steve Mershon, Walt Denny, Mary & Mark
Milligan, Tim Riffle, Mike Frazier, Art Chonko, Seth
Patton, Chuck Peterson, Ned Roberts, Evelyne and Helmut
Poelzing
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of November 13, 2002:  Page 4, Change Mary
Mulligan to Mary Milligan.  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO ADOPT THE
MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of December 9:  Page 3, ¾ of the way down, change
to ”Mr. Parris feels we should have a discussion, for how
we interpret the sign code is how we would go in the
future and why.”  
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.
MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

New Business:  

Steve Mershon, 110 East Elm Street - Signs
    
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant wishes to (1) add
a panel to the existing ground sign, to be 32”x15”, double
sided, and colors to be black and navy on a white
background.
A pair of directional signs would be placed at the bottom
of the stairs and outside Mr. Mershon’s office door.  All
signs are consistent with other tenant signs.  
  A variance is necessary for number of signs, but Mr.
Salvage reminded the group that another tenant received a
variance for the same signage as Mr. Mershon is requesting.
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether the white would be as bright
as that in the picture and was told the white could be
softened.
Mr. Wilkenfeld applied the criteria 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.   Yes, special conditions exist.
    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.  
Yes, a literal interpretation would deprive applicant of
his rights.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  This is obvious.
D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this
Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district.  .It would not confer undue privilege.
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.  No, it would not.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR THE SIGN
PACKAGE FOR APPLICATION #02-162, BASED UPON OUR REVIEW OF
THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE UNDER THE CODE.  
MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-162 AS
PRESENTED.  MR.BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Evelyne Poelzing, 126 West Elm Street – Convert Barn into
One-Car Garage

    Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant wishes to
convert the barn into a one-car garage. The outside would
remain the same except for the single door on the south
side.  The floor would be cemented with apron, and the
existing concrete driveway would be extended with gravel.  
A short picket fence would be installed around the turn-
around of the driveway.
    Ned Roberts explained the siding they have planned
with a board and batten look for the front.  The door
would be paneled and they could stick battens on the door
instead of having it flush.  
    Mr. Parris asked if there is a way they could
dress it down with laminations or something to make it
look less like a door.
    Ms. Poelzing said the gray color will blend in
with the existing color scheme.
    Mr. Burriss is concerned with the door’s
rectangular shape with rounded tops. He recommended that
the applicants study Steve Mershon’s door, which we worked
hard on.  It has a flat horizontal door beyond which we
put a plywood door with framing and window.   We need to
know exactly what the final door will look like.  Ned
Roberts said it would be a metal door close to arches,
with flush panels with batten strips.  It is far back on
the lot   Mr. Burriss asked about a horizontal door with
rough plywood on top, and Ms. Poelzing said the metal door
is a matter of maintenance.  The rest of the barn is wood
and naturally aged, and Mr. Burris is concerned about
maintaining the subtlety and character of the barn.  He is
not very excited about a panel.  
    Mr. Burriss knows Ned Roberts will arrange for
drainage so there will not be any rotting.  The applicants
have done good work on the front of the house and he would
like to make this plan consistent with that.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld asked that since you have to take
off the board and battens anyway, could you apply that to
the front of the metal door, but was told that would be
too heavy a door.
    Ms. Poelzing said the big pine tree would hide the
garage
    Mr. Parris has no objection to the type of door if
it can be colored or textured to give the same flavor as
the barn.  It is not very visible from the street.
    Mr. Salvage would not like to see a bright white
door there.
    Ned Roberts said they could go with a flush door
and texture can be put on it.  

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-159 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THAT THE FINISH OF THE FLAT
STEEL GARAGE DOOR IS SUBMITTED TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND
COMMISSIONER BURRISS FOR FINAL APPROVAL; AND (2) THAT THE
FENCE MATERIAL IS TO BE CEDAR.  

Mark Milligan, 212 East Elm Street – Construct Two-Car
Garage

    Mr. Dorman said the application is to build a 1 ½
story garage with storage at the top and (2) a pergola
will tie into the existing landscaping.  A variance is
needed for the rear setback.  Colors will match the house.
Ms. Lucier asked about the window details, and Mr. Burriss
is comfortable with the plan.  Probably the light fixtures
are to be determined, and that should be a condition. She
also asked whether the tree would have to come down
    Mr. Milligan said the further they move the garage
to the house, the more they block the neighbor’s view.  
The Westbrook’s tree is a buffer
Mr. Burriss said it’s one of our wonderful, small Village
lots, and in order for them to have any consistency with
garden space, the proposed placement of it makes sense.  
To put the garage closer to the house would make an
imposition to the house.  
    Mr. Burriss would like Mr. Dorman to look at final
plans for downspouts and for final lighting fixtures.
 
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-001 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THAT THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT
THE LIGHT FIXTURES FOR FINAL APPROVAL BY THE VILLAGE
PLANNER; AND (2) THAT THE SIDING AND DOORS WILL BE WHITE
TO MATCH THE BACK PORTION OF THE HOUSE.  MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Denison University – Refigure a Portion of Burg Street

    Art Chonko showed plans to change the road to Burg
Street They have changed the road behind Mitchell and they
will have a new connector road between the two new
buildings and the parking garage.  The third component is
to get around campus without leaving campus.  They will
remove parking and put it in the garage. The roads will be
two-way roads all around campus, and they plan to start in
the spring.  For the main intersection at Burg and
Thresher, they will push Burg toward Thresher to allow a
two-way road around Shorney and maintain parking on Burg.  
The college is working with the Village on the parking
situation, since they share the Burg parking lot.  He said
there may be footpaths installed.  
    Mr. Burriss asked about a retention wall and was
told it might be riprap or a wall.  He thought entryway
gate posts would be nice.  Mr. Burriss said you also need
landscaping to separate the two roads, and Mr. Chonko said
they have not gotten that far yet. Mr. Burriss is also
concerned about headlights shining into neighboring
houses.  Mr. Chonko said they will use Granville style
lighting Mr. Salvage recommended guardrails and Mr. Chonko
thought the guardrails might be similar to the post and
beam posts at the little bridge near the golf course.
    Mr. Parris said the more traffic you can get off
Burg Street, the safer it will be.  

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,AND C 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 JANUARY
8, 2003.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Business:  Sidewalk Signs. Mr. Dorman said the
maximum number of signs per storefront is 4, but what
about the rear of a store?  A sidewalk sign is an
individual sign and should be counted in the total number
of signs.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld thought in some places you can’t
walk two abreast for all the signs, and Mr. Dorman said
such signs must not be an obstruction.  Mr. Burriss would
like to discourage any more sidewalk signs.
    Regarding definition of “storefront,” Mr. Salvage
said sometimes we give permission for signs in the rear
and how should that be interpreted.  Mr. Dorman said the
logical way to interpret storefront is as a business.  
    We are not going to be able to write a perfect
code, thought Mr. Parris, and a lot of this is subject to
interpretation.  If we are going to change the way we
interpret, we need to agree.  Variances are always
possible.  
    Mr. Wilkenfeld said anything that announces a
store is a sign regardless if it’s in the back.
    Sometimes, as in the Bakery, directional signs are
necessary.  Mr. Salvage thought a storefront is not a
business; it is the front of a store.  Nor is an alley a
storefront.  But Mr. Wilkenfeld said directional signs for
deliveries should be approved by the Village Planner
    In the case of a building with multiple tenants,
each tenant is a separate store front, added Mr. Parris.  
    Mr. Dorman asked if is important to limit the
total number of signs for a business and was told yes and
Mr. Parris said you always nave a variance option.  The
code tries to balance the business as well as how we want
the village to look.  We need to agree on what is a
variance situation and what is not.  
    Mr. Salvage asked whether we need to establish a
definition of storefront and was told yes.
    For a business on a corner lot, Mr. Salvage said
we decided to give them additional square footage but no
additional signs.
    To sum up:
    
    Storefront signs are at the primary entrance of
the business.
Informational signs, such as Visa or MasterCard, should be
excluded from the maximum count.
Such signs are to be determined by GPC upon application.
    Mr. Dorman will draft an amendment that would
define informational signs.
    Be flexible on number of informational signs.
    Sidewalk signs are included in the total number of
signs per business.

Adjournment: 9:10 p.m.
Next Meetings:  January 27 and February 10

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen




Page 1 ... 1 2 3 4