Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 4/26/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 26, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Jackie O'Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle
Richard Salvage (Vice Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld 
Members Absent: none
Citizens Present:  Phil Watts, David & Susan Schmidt, Greg Moore
Also Present:  Joe Hickman, Village Manager
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  None

Minutes of April 12, 2004:  Page 2, second motion, change to "…to recommend to Village Manager to approve demolition…."

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

       New Business:

Granville Mill, 400 South Main Street  - Addition

 The application is to expand the building 40' toward Main Street.  It will be 38' from ROW.  BZBA approved a variance for front yard setback, but GPC members were confused as to exactly what they had specified for the size of the new entrance. 
 Phil Watts provided sample photographs and said there would be landscaping in front of the building, and parking would be on the side only.  It will be up about 2 concrete blocks to get it above flood level.  He showed the group color samples of overhang and siding and where the new addition will go. 
 Mr. Salvage suggested that a decision should be subject to deciding exactly what BZBA specified.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld would like to see a site plan of the entire area, showing how this addition will look from the road, but Mr. Salvage felt this was beyond our scope of responsibility and that we should act only on what is before us tonight.
 Mr. Burriss also wanted to see the side elevation.  Mr. Watts said the building has a fairly steep pitched roof.  The overhang will extend across the existing building and be the new façade.  He said they could change the depth of the overhang.   Mr. Burriss asked whether merchandise would be stored outside, and Mr. Watts said even if they do not, there will still be the overhang.
 Mr. Burriss asked for screening as part of the landscape planning.  When they put in the Thrift Shop they installed a wall as buffer for parking, and he thinks we need to be consistent.
 Mr. Riffle asked what is between the front porch and the sidewalk and the answer was grass or green space.
 Mr. Burriss asked whether there would be glass doors and the answer was Yes, one set of doors maybe with a panel. Windows are double hung casement, two on each side. It will look like it does now.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked whether they were taking out the asphalt and the answer was Yes.
 Mr. Burriss said it seems like one of the primary entrances would be on the north, and Mr. Watts might want to think of coordinating parking and entrance way.  Mr. Watts will add concrete blocks to the parking slots.
  Mr. Riffle thought sidewalks would be a good idea and was told that would not be a problem.
 Mr. Parris said we could act on what's before us and ask the applicant to return for final details on the door, parking, signage, pedestrian access, sidewalks, outdoor merchandise storage and BZBA specifications.  Mr. Watts thought they would want a sign similar to the one at Granville Lumber and some lighting under the canopy.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-045 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:  (1) ANY CONFLICTS WITH THE SITE PLAN PRESENTED AND THE BZBA APPROVAL HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT  BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE VILLAGE PLANNER; (2) THERE WILL NEED TO BE LANDSCAPING, SCREENING, PARKING PLANS; (3) FINAL DESIGN OF THE SINGLE DOOR WILL BE APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND MR. BURRIS; (4) SIDE ELEVATIONS WILL MATCH CURRENT ELEVATIONS; (5) FINAL DETAILS FOR LANDSCAPING, OUTDOOR SALES, LIGHTING, SIDEWALKS, AND ACCESS WILL HAVE TO BE APPROVED AT A LATER DATE.    MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Susan and Daniel Schmidt, 225 South Prospect Street - additional curb cut
 The applicants wish to create another driveway to the north to add more parking in addition to that provided by the shared driveway.
 Mr. Schmidt said there is a lot of street parking and they want more space for their own cars, and he showed where it would go.  They already have space for two cars, but the second is jammed right against the first and against a wall.  The shared garage is old and too small for two cars. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether they could have a parking permit, and Mr. Hickman said permits are only for handicapped parking. Mr. Wilkenfeld would rather see the extra parking in the rear rather than add another curb cut.
 Mr. Parris said two curb cuts are is not normally allowed and would like to have seen a picture of the parking areas and Mr. Schmidt sketched a picture.  Although the code does not specifically  preclude two curb cuts, Mr. Paris had looked for examples of this kind of application and found one with a circular drive in front. The Heisey House has a pair of concrete lanes, which are less intrusive than a concrete drive.   
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said this is in the historical district so that's why he would recommend a 'reserved' space with towing in front.
 Once we open Pandora's Box, said Mr. Parris, it's going to be hard to close it again.
 Mrs. Schmidt said there is a magnolia tree in poor shape that would have to come down.
 Ms. O'Keefe noted that they already have two driveways.  Technically it's a double sized drive, added Mr. Parris.  The property line goes down the center of the driveway.
 Mr. Parris noted we are willing to help the applicants out but he would like to look around some more.  We need to talk to Mr. Strayer and review the code.  Parking is at a premium to begin with, and if we grant you this second access, we would have to grant it to anybody.
 Mr. Burriss added that a curb cut would eliminate one on-street parking place.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld would like to look more closely about how the design would look.
 
    MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE, WITH APPLICANTS' APPROVAL, APPLICATION 04-046 PENDING FURTHER REVIEW.   MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

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

 Greg Moore, representative from the church, said the 18 sq.ft. sign is a temporary promotional/construction-type sign but with no contractors' names.  As you enter the main driveway, it will probably be on the west side at the proper setback off the ROW.  It will be up from now until December during the construction period.  It's a little too big to fit within the code, and Mr. Salvage asked whether they could reduce it to 15 sq.ft, and Mr. Moore said Yes, but they want to make the 6 photos as large as possible.  Mr. Salvage suggested removing the word "new" since they are all new. 
 The "Shine On" words would have yellow color, and the photos are black and white with black printing.

     MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE O4-047 WITH THE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATION:  DOWNSIZE TO 16 SQ.FT.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Sharon & Wayne Young (Stephen Fowler, purchaser), 117 South Pearl Street - Demolition

 Mr. Fowler wishes to purchase the home and wants approval for removing the one-story wood frame structure attached to the south side. The exposed wall has a door and two double-hung windows, which are still in the house. This is not original and of limited historical value.  There are two curb cuts and he would waive the second one and plant with grass and landscaping and a picket fence.  The boundaries have changed, and when they moved the lot line, they moved the garage.  The house is pretty much on the lot line, and Mr. Fowler wants to reestablish the original lot line.   
 Mr. Burriss would like to see detail on the steps, and Mr. Fowler said they would be replaced several months after the demolition. 

     MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO VILLAGE MANAGER THAT THIS BE APPROVED.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A, C, AND D 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 APRIL 23, 2004.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

  
 Adjournment:   8:30 p.m.
Next Meetings:  May 10 and 24

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 4/12/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 12, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Jackie O'Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle
Richard Salvage (Vice Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld 
Members Absent: none
Citizens Present: Robert Hutchison, Shari Joseph, Laura Joseph, Andrew and Kaarina Sterrett, Ruth E. Owen, Mike Frazier, Amy Myers-Payne, Pat & Ron Winters, Ned Roberts, Ann L. Watson, David Agosta, Mr. Binford
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  None

Minutes of March 8, 2004: 

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

       Old Business:

David Agosta, 410 East Broadway - Addition

 Mr. Strayer said they wish to put an addition to the rear of the house and extend the kitchen and family room.  The house is close to the school, and this would be closer by 2" or so. He will remove a section of the existing structure.  Materials will match existing house.  Mr. Strayer waived the necessity for a variance.
 Mr. Parris asked what is coming off and the representative said the roofline over the three windows is coming off.  They are stripping off the porch back to where it is two stories.  The deck will stay for now but will be removed later along with the hot tub.  Mr. Agosta added that there are no plans for a new deck. 
 Mr. Parris asked whether the shape of the roofline will be a pitched roof going in the opposite direction from the current one and was told Yes.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-023 AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Rose Echeandia, 121 South Prospect Street - Change of Use

  Mr. Strayer said the change is from the previous beauty shop storage area upstairs to a gift shop for flowers and such.  He gave administrative approval because our last meeting was canceled because of lack of quorum, and she wanted to get started.  Since there were  no issues of concern by the members present, they authorized Mr. Strayer to approve it.  This is merely a formality.
  
    MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-028 FOR CHANGE OF USE AS PRESENTED.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 The applicant will return later for her already-installed sign.

   New Business:

    Amy Myers-Payne, 130 North Prospect Street, Change of Use

  Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to change the use from a dry cleaner's to a children's art studio.  No structural changes or remodeling is required.
  Ms. Myers-Payne said she is interested in starting a creative arts center for children, 2-18, primarily set up for painting and clay, with no kilns or hazardous materials.  She wants to open May 1, and she will be setting it up as a non-profit business.
  Mr. Strayer said he did not know that and it changes things.  It will have to change from 1159.02.A.2.G, Service, Recreational Business, to 1159.02.A.2.F.  It is still a permitted use.
  Mr. Parris noted that it is not a bad idea to discuss all of her signage with Mr. Strayer before submitting a sign application.

     MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE O4-028 WITH THE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATION:  TO CHANGE TO 1159.02.a.2.f , THAT BEING A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, RATHER THAN LETTER G.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Granville Public Library, 122 South Prospect Street, Rezoning

 Mr. Strayer said the Library wishes to rezone from VRD to VBD in order to allow the historically significant Sinnett House, which will be moved onto the lot, to have office space for organizations.  If it is rezoned, it could also be used for a residence, as a conditional use.  The library would use the Sinnett House as a non-profit center, but they would also like to be able to rent office space in the house.  They received a variance from BZBA for side yard offset last week.
 Mr. Parris said a year ago GPC denied a demolition of the Pyle house, but at that time there was no specified use for the vacant lot.   
  In answer to a question by Mr. Wilkenfeld, Ruth Owen, from the Library Board, felt there were no restrictions on the rezoning.  The library would have the right to sell the property at a later date.  Part of the property will be a driveway going to the library, and a future purchaser would need to get a lot split.  The library needs a wide driveway to accommodate fire trucks.  Ms. Owen said at one time the library wanted to gift the Sinnett House to the library, but funds were not forthcoming.  

     MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO VILLAGE MANAGER TO APPROVE DEMOLITION.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

   Granville Public Library, 122 South Prospect Street - Demolition

  The library requests a permit to raze the Pyle House in preparation for a move of the Sinnett House to that lot.  They researched the Pyle house and found it was built between 1914 and 1920 and has no outstanding historical features.
  Mr. Wilkenfeld thought moving the Sinnett House was a good idea.

 MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT GPC RECOMMEND TO VILLAGE COUNCIL DEMOLITION OF THE HOUSE.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
 Sharon Joseph, 115 North Prospect Street - Reconstruction 

  Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to renovate the dilapidated rear entry to the second floor with a more attractive structure.  The roofline will match other buildings in the block.  The applicant wishes to enlarge the second-floor deck to accommodate a more compact stairwell.  She will remove existing stairs and add fencing and entry gate on ground floor to prevent illegal dumping.
  Sharon Joseph said part of the concern is that she has had to deal with illegal dumping of tires, etc., which she has to remove.  The existing steps  come directly to the curb and it's hard to get onto the lowest step.  She hopes to convert this into a professional office and feels that the improvement will be 1000 per cent better than it is and will enhance the former Petunia Park
  Mr. Wilkenfeld asked about the colors, and Ms. Joseph showed a color sample for deck and railing.  Vinyl siding will be extended and cleaned up.
  Mr. Riffle asked whether the antenna would disappear and was told Yes.
  Mr. Parris asked will the upper story project and was told Yes, the lower story is backset with the line of the building.  The deck will extend over that slightly.
  Mr. Salvage asked about the roofline, and she stated she wants to do what is similar to Broadway.  Most of them have a project6ion and a little overhang.  Hers won't be that ornate, but she wants to clean it up. She will work with the builder to see how to do that.  Maybe she will add an awning later.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 04-037 AS PRESENTED.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Kaaarina Sterrett, 222 North Granger Street - fencing

  Mr. Strayer said last year the alley on Sunrise was vacated and the land given to the neighbors.  Now the applicant wishes to move the existing fence to the new rear lot line.  We are missing a survey showing where the new lot line is.
  Andy Sterrett said he has spoken to Scott Harmon and he agreed to send the survey to us.  They are moving the fence about 6'.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-040 AS PRESENTED PENDING RECEIPT OF SURVEY.  MR. BURISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Ann Watson, 127 West Maple Street - fence

  Mr. Strayer said the proposed new 8' wood plank privacy fence construction on the west property line lies on the edge of a significant drop off in grade and the applicant wishes to block it off.
  Ms. Watson showed on the photograph where the fence will go.  It will be in two panels and located so that the neighbor can have access to her yard.  The front side of the fence will face the neighbor and will connect to the old fence.  The new  cedartone fence will match the existing fence.  The old fence is treated and has never been painted.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 04-041 AS PRESENTED. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Lisa Morrisette, 214 iorth Pearl Street - Replace door

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wants to remove the patio door and screen and replace with double patio door.
 Ned Roberts, Builder, said it will have an 8' Anderson Patio door with screen panel and 2 glass panels to replace the existing door.  
 Mr. Parris asked whether there would be mullions, and  Mr. Roberts was not sure, but the windows have mullions.
 Mr. Burriss said we would be more comfortable with the Colonial Mullions rather than arts and crafts style.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-442 AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ron Winters, 343 East College Street - Roof

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to replace the 100-year-old slate roof with shingles.  The sample provided resembles slate. 
 Ron Winters thought a metal low standing seam roof would be put over the porch, rather than shingles, and Jerry McLain is looking into this.
 Mr. Parris felt that since this is on a very slight slope, metal would shed the rain better than shingles, and Mr. Riffle agreed.  We could give the option of using either one. Mr. Winters preferred metal if it will work.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF 04-043 UNDER THE CONDITION THAT  (1) THE APPLICANT HAS THE OPTION OF USING STANDING SEAM OVER THE PORCH.  WE ARE NOT APPROVING A SHINGLE ROOF ON THE PORCH.  (2) COLOR IS TO BE COLONIAL SLATE.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Chuck Whitman, 138 East Broadway - Café furniture

 The application is for approval of the style of furniture for 6 tables and 12 chairs at the outdoor café at Whitt's. They have already received approval from Village Council for the outdoor taables.  The color and style is to be as in the photograph provided.
 Mr. Burriss asked whether the tables would accommodate an umbrella and was told, No, but there may be free-standing umbrellas.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked whether people could put two tables together and was told Yes.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE TABLES AND CHAIRS AS IN THE PICTURE PROVIDED WITH FINAL UMBRELLA COLORS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Business: 

BankOne, Binford Electric, 484 South Main Street - Lighting

 Mr. Binford said the bank wants to know what type of lighting should be considered.  The applicant discussed foot candle distances and lighting already in place.  He said the wallpaks could be removed if GPC wished.  They wish to light up the area within 50' of the ATM.
 Mr. Parris thought there was a lot of lighting there already, and Mr. Binford said lighting is concentrated there and they want 250-watt wallpaks.  There are two there now, one in front and one in back.  Mr. Parris thought if they wanted to light the area, they should put in pole lights on the road side and in the back. Instead of 400 watts, 175 would be better.  He said BankOne can apply for anything they want, but he would be happier with two poles and softening the wallpaks.  "There is enough light there to remove paint from a car."  Concerning the appearance of the structure, adding more light would be "like putting lipstick on a pig."  Mr. Burris suggested putting earrings on the pig.
 Mr. Riffle wanted to see a site plan.
 Mr. Burriss thought if they could get rid of the homely wallpaks on the building and put up a wall-mounted post light, that would be better.  Maybe sconces could be added and complementary post lights within the site. 
 Mr. Binford said he would take the suggestion back for two post lights, eliminate the 2 wallpaks, and keep a light under the canopy.  Mr. Parris would go to 4 lights if they removed 2 from the building. 
 Mr. Parris said the only dark spot is behind the ATM.  There is already a lot of light in the parking area.  He suggested the applicant look at other lighting around town.

Genesis Land Development (Gil Krone's Appeal)    Village Council wants us to look at the road classification by Licking County Planning Commission ands whether it is relevant.  Mr. Strayer talked to Tim Lolo and if it is a minor collector, they do not have any regulations.  Milner Road is unclassified.  Mr. Parris had asked the Law Director what should we consider the road, and he said consider it as it stands today as a local road.  Knowing what the question is, He thinks Mr. Strayer should get an opinion in writing from the Law Director in our packets before we vote at the next meeting. 

Finding of Fact:  MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS  AND A,B,C,DE,F,G,H, AND I UNDER OLD BUSINESS AS WELL AS THE FINDING OF FACT FOR RECOMMENDATIONS TO VILLAGE COUNCIL AND TO VILLAGE MANAGER UNDER B AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Library) AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF APRIL 9, 2004.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

  
  Adjournment: 8:40 p.m.
Next Meetings:     April 26 (Mr. Strayer absent) and May 10

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 3/8/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 8, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Jackie O’Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle  Members Absent: Richard Salvage (Vice Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld   Citizens Present: Catherine Cunningham, Brian  Arnold
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak. Citizens Comments:  None
 Minutes of February 23, 2004: 
 Page 2:  Line 9, …”when it is completed, The overall appearance will look really big.”
 Page 2nd paragraph up:  “…extensive testimony from the applicant and citizens who were objecting to the curb cuts. . . . from our own staff….
 Page 3:  right before the motion:  “Mr. Gorry said this is not a public hearing….”

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Other Business:

Meeting Dates

 Mr. Strayer provided a revised list of GPC meeting dates and said he cannot be present on April 26. Mr. Parris suggested that Joe Hickman lead the meeting, and if he cannot, maybe the meeting can be cancelled. 
 October 11 is Columbus Day, and members thought they could all meet on October 13.  
 
Gil Krone’s Appeal  of our Genesis decision will be at Village Council on March 17th.

 Arby’s

  Mr. Strayer is collecting photos from other Arby’s sites.  Members agreed that the architectural design should be such that if Arby’s closed down, anyone else could move into it. 
  Catherine Cunningham and Brian Arnold provided revised site drawings for the building and explained the revisions they made. They dropped the false windows and cut down the length of the building.  They added a different tone of brick, lighter at the top and darker at the bottom and added a  slate roof instead of standing seam.  On the front they cut down the massing and added lighting to top of awnings.  A stripe was added.  The A.C. units will not be visible on the roof.
  Mr. Parris’s concern is not the color of the brick, rather the front element above the door, which does not fit our zoning code or any of our architecture in town.  He noted that this style is a “deal killer.”
  Ms. Cunningham asked whether it was the shape and pitch and was told No, it’s the window itself.  It’s modern and Mr. Parris is not going to tell her what style they should put up, but there are several suggested styles in our code which fit our community.  She needs to be sympathetic with the architecture of the area.  The signage also must conform to our code.
  Mr. Riffle added that we are trying to avoid trade mark buildings.  Anyone else should be able to come into that building if you go, added Mr. Parris.  Signs are irrelevant.  It’s the overall character itself.  He asked her whether she had studied the code extensively, and Ms. Cunningham said No, Not extensively, but she has looked at what Arby’s can do.  This element is what Arby’s franchiser says they must have.  There are several buildings in Arby’s portfolio, and there are few like this one. She is not sure people would recognize this building as an Arby’s.   She thinks they could lower the element.
  Mr. Burriss said there are a lot of threes to it, and it could be stronger if the window could be three instead of four.  Look at Greek Revival buildings.  The central could be made less modern divided into three.  They need a more positive architectural element instead of a strong sign element.  The stripe is an improvement, but the awnings are still there.  The stripe could be smaller and move away from the red.  Look for a contrast.  He would like to see standing seam somewhere else on the building.
  Ms. Cunningham said the sign would be internally lit and was told by Mr. Burriss they are not allowed.  Mr. Parris suggested asking for specs on signage square footage.
 
  Mr. Burriss summed up the recommendations:
Striped awning
Standing seam, perhaps green, roof
Soften the design.  Look at New England style towns
Remove the element or make it round
Make your corporate presence fit in
No internally lit signs
Our goal is for our architecture to say this is “Some place,” not “Anyplace.”
Stone is not necessary on the bottom; it can continue to be brick.
  Ms. Cunningham admitted that there were other locations which they definitely wanted to be in but they could not get the franchise so they lost the area.  The officers of PRG hold the franchise, and with each new president there is a new set of rules.  At the present time we have to build this style.  She does not personally like the diamond shape, but maybe it can be made smaller.
  Mr. Riffle thought the centerpiece does not tie into the rest of the detailing on the building.  It should be done more classically.  He is not sure rounding would fit in with the rectangular shape of the building.
  Mr. Burriss asked about the dumpster and was told it is behind the building and is brick and will match the rest of the building.  The drive-through is away from the building with landscaping.   Water run-off will go down into a storm.     Glass in the building is clear protective double-pane glass, not tinted. 
  Arby’s will work on the design some more and get back to us, but Ms. Cunningham warned that they might not appreciate GPC’s comments. 

  Finding of Fact:  none
  
  Adjournment: 8:55 p.m. Next Meetings:    March 22 and April 12  Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 2/23/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 23, 2004
Minutes




Members Present:  Melissa Hartfield, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Vice Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent:  Jack Burriss Citizens Present: Jim McInturf, Catherine Cunningham,  Ed Smith, Joan and Gil Krone, John Minsker, Andrew Guancial, Kathryn Dunlap, Jerry Martin, Mike Mead, Brian  Arnold, Breanna Schwart




Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner, Jim Gorrey, Legal Advisor
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak. Citizens Comments:  None
 Minutes of February 9, 2004: 
 Page 3:  5th line up, delete “not” before “a public street.”
 Page 4:  2d line up: delete “accesses,” and change to “control splits in township areas.”
 Page 5:  Line 1, last word should be off.
 Page 5:  6th line:  “diagonal natural gas pipeline between…”
 Page 5:  Next line:  “title searches showing such restrictions.”
 At end of paragraph starting with Mr. Salvage, add They have not requested that.”
 Page 10:  Last line, add IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 Page 13:  The motion was made by Mr. Salvage.
 
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  Old Business: Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road - Addition
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.




    Mr. Strayer said the application was tabled at the last meeting because GPC wanted to see more detail on the brick or siding.  The applicant turned in plans with pictures of the building from various locations.
 Mr. McInturf added that in the new plans they show cornerboards, shutters, and trim. 
 Mr. Parris asked whether it will be brick or vinyl siding, and Mr. McInturf said it will be vinyl and will match the building in various places.  The trim will be 4”, consistent with other parts of the church.  In bricking up the entire side, Mr. Parris feared a vista of a massive expanse of brick. 
  Mr, Wilkenfeld asked whether the new part would be recessed and was told No.
  Mr. Salvage asked about color and was told it will match.  The shutters will be fern green or deep green and there will be no shutters in the back, only on the other three sides.
 Mr. Riffle said what they have done is break up the appearance, but he still feels when it is completed, the overall appearance will look really big. Mr. McInturf noted that a lot of it won’t be visible because of the landscaping.  There are only three properties able to see the vinyl. 
Mr. Riffle suggested adding a false window on the bathroom with closed shutters, and Mr. Parris suggested windows with obscure glass.  He said the modification could be submitted to the Village Planner.
       
Mr. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-009 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THERE WILL BE 4” TRIM AROUND THE WINDOWS; (2) SHUTTERS WITH ALL WINDOWS; (3) VINYL SIDING OF A COLOR TO MATCH THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING; (4) APPLICANT WILL ADD THREE WINDOWS OR SIMULATED WINDOWS ON THE NORTH SIDE.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 
 
Genesis Land Developoment, Milner Road – Lot Split & Curb Cuts




MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 Mr. Strayer said the application was tabled following the public hearing to allow GPC to gain more information from legal staff.  The developer originally wanted 7 curb cuts on Milner but has reduced the request to 5 curb cuts for safety reasons.  Although the property lies in the Township, the road is in the Village and needs Village approval.
 Mr. Parris stated that we heard fairly extensive testimony from the applicant and citizens who were objecting to the curb cuts.  It was tabled because we did not have a good understanding from our own staff, and he asked Mr. Gorry for his input.
 Mr. Gorry said the responsibility of the Village is to approve access to its streets, and that determination is based on highway and safety issues.  Since the land in question is located in the township, the village does not have authority to determine whether the lot splits are appropriate.  That determination lies with the Licking County Planning Commission.  Although not in the Village, the property owner has an easement for a right to connect to public streets.  In fact, if a political subdivision denies that right, that constitutes a taking, for which compensation must be paid.  There is not much we can do to prohibit access to village streets, but we are required to get approval from GPC and look into the safety of making curb cuts.  The issue before the Board is to what degree can the request for curb cuts be done in a safe manner and how many should be allowed?  Lot splits are not an issue for GPC.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld’s concern is what happens if we approve access and this is not what they end up with, and Mr. Gorry said we can determine exactly where the curb cuts shall be.  If the lot split is not approved or if the county does not follow GPC recommendations, the applicant will have to return to GPC. 
 Whether Milner Road eventually becomes a collector road is not to be taken into consideration.  Look at the road as it exists today.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld reminded the group that numerous neighbors said the road as it exists is not safe for more curb cuts and wondered whether more curb cuts could be made.  Mr. Gorry said if that was testimony taken under oath, it should be considered, but you also need to consider the report from the traffic engineer.  If you have conflicting testimony, you have to resolve that.   Mr. Strayer said he does not see another way to reduce the total of 5 without an internal road.  Combining Lots 3 and 4 would require a bridge over the waterway.
 Mr. Salvage noted that the traffic engineer’s study indicates although the sight distances were adequate, the number of access points in such a short distance would not be in accordance with the Master Plan.  Reducing the total to 5 spreads out the distances more.
 Gil Krone wished to speak but was told by the Chairman that this was not a public hearing and did not recognize him.  Mr. Gorry said this is not a public hearing although it is open to the public.
 
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-010 AS MODIFIED WITH AGREEMENT OF VILLAGE STAFF FOR FIVE ACCESS POINTS RATHER THAN SEVEN AS FOLLOWS (1) LOT 3; (2) COMBINING 4 AND 5; (3) LOT 6; (4) LOT 7; (5) LOTS 8 AND 9.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY {MR. WILKENFELD voted no, based upon testimony of citizens and because he thinks there are too many curb cuts}.




Fred Abraham, 460 South Main Street – sign




 Mr. Strayer said this application is to install a window sign on south door.  The sign has already been installed on the window through a small miscommunication when the wall sign was approved at the last meeting.  Mr. Abraham thought he could put all three signs on the same approval.  This sign meets all portions of the code.  The applicant cannot be here tonight.




MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  
 
Other Business:




 Methodist Church - landscaping




 John Minsker stated that some of the landscaping approved for the parking lot has been planted.  They started to do the northeast corner and became aware that Kathryn Dunlap had a concern with the gate and fence.  They are concerned about this and want to adhere to the agreement, but they don’t want to lose a parking place.   
 Ms. Dunlap said her yard is small and there is not much room to get through
the gate with planting in place.  If they screen the trash container, it would be better.   
  Mr. Parris said if a change is made to the agreed-upon landscaping plan, they would have to return to GPC for approval. 




Jerry Martin, Brew’s, 116 E. Broadway – redevelopment
  Mr. Martin wishes to remodel the façade of the former 1st Federal building to prepare to move Brew’s into the building.  He described the changes planned:  taking the awning to the second floor, adding detail to the top, adding a balcony, and putting in a second-story enclosed staircase exit where the drive-through was.  It will project into the alley.
 Mr. Riffle asked about the brackets and the balcony.  Mr. Martin said the balcony is useable and juts out 8’. It is of molded urethane.  They will replace all windows, but only one will open.
 Mr. Riffle recommended putting the door on the front of the elevator and having the brackets the same size.
 Mr. Salvage wants to see detail on the driveway side.




Arby’s, Rt. 16 and Cherry Valley Road
  Brian Arnold showed updated drawings with neighboring buildings and said there will be curved landscaping around front.  They will add sidewalks and a mangate and landscaping to the dumpster.
  Mr. Strayer reported that Jack Burris did not think the traffic in the back was conducive to pedestrian traffic.  Maybe they could reverse the building.  He said Arby’s will get a letter of continuation to us.
  Mr. Salvage would prefer to have the building facing SA Way.  It would make it more pedestrian friendly.  And more friendly to cars too, added Mr. Parris.  You drive into the front of a building, not a rear.  Mr. Salvage thought it would make the drive-through look better to put the window on the other side.  Brian Arnold thought there would be a better traffic movement this way.  He asked if there would be a lot of pedestrian traffic, and Mr. Salvage told him not at this time, but we are trying to make the village more conducive to foot traffic.
 Mr. Riffle recommended moving the building and directing traffic around.  Flip the plans.
 
 Finding of Fact:  The group read Mr. Strayer’s Findings for Binford Electric on Broadway, and they are attached to these minutes.
    MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING FOR 04-003.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND FINDING WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
  
  MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE FINDING FOR 04-004 AND GPC FINDS THAT THE APPLICATION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH 11750.3(a) OF THE SBD LIGHTING REGULATIONS.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.




   MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A AND B UNDER OLD BUSINESS  AND A 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 FEBRUARY 20, 2004.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  Adjournment: 8:55 p.m. Next Meetings:    March 8 and March 22  Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 2/9/04

 GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 9, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Jackie O’Keefe, Mark
Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage
(Chair),Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent:  none Citizens
Present: Joan & Gerald Jeffers, John Lemon, Jon Corbett,
Mark Clapsadle, Rick Burns, John Lancaster, Patrick
Guanciale, Andrew Guanciale, Brian Arnold, Ed Smith,
Allison Hyer, Barb and Fred Abraham, Scott Gillie, Dave
Conklin, Catherine Cunningham, Leon Habegger, William
Sewell, Gil & Joan Krone, Carl Strauss, Bea Eisenberg, Jim
McInturf
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner

New Member and Election of Officers:  Mr. Salvage welcomed
Mr. Wilkenfeld back onto the Commission and asked for
nomination of officers:
MR. SALVAGE NOMINATED MR. PARRIS TO BE CHAIRMAN.  MR.
RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. BURRISS NOMINATED MR. SALVAGE TO BE VICE CHAIRMAN.  
MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 Mr. Parris took over the Chairman’s duties and asked for
Citizens’ Comments:  Bill Sewell of Park Trails asked
whether there would be one entrance and exit onto Cherry
Valley for Arby’s and would the traffic be taken into
account, and it was Mr. Parris’s understanding that there
would be one opening, and the traffic would be considered
at the proper time.
   The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.  
Minutes of January 12, 2003:  
    Page 2:  Halfway down, change to “Mr. Salvage does
not have a problem with shoebox type lights.”
    Page 2, before the second motion, add The
applicant agreed to table the application.    
    Page 3, 7th line up, delete “but”
    Page 3, 5th line up, change “extend” to extent.
    Page 3, last paragraph, “Mr. Salvage referred to
10b and 10e on road widths.  Space is needed for utilities
at the road sides, but care is needed to protect
ecologically sensitive areas while at the same time make
streets no wider than necessary.”  

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR.
RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  New
Business:  Greg Ream, 130 East Broadway – Window Sign    
    Mr. Strayer said that MoundBuilders Real Estate
has applied for a second window sign for Lemmon &
Associates beneath the first sign.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld said a second sign falls within our
code, but there may be design questions.  Mr. Burriss
noted the existing sign is 32” and the proposed one is
37½” so there is an inconsistent top line.  Members
determined the sign falls within the code.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-007 AS
SUBMITTED.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Greg Ream, 130 East Broadway – Projecting Sign

    Mr. Strayer said the application is for a second
projecting sign.
    Mr. Parris said the code precludes two projecting
signs, so they can’t both be approved.  
    Bea Eisenberg said they will hang the new sign on
a chain beneath the existing sign and will make both signs
the same width.  The new one is white with blue letters,
double sided, and placed next to the flower box.
    
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 04-008 WITH THE CONDITION
THAT THE NEW SIGN BE HUNG ON THE SAME BRACKET AND BE THE
SAME WIDTH AS THE EXISTING SIGN.

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road –
Addition

    Mr. Strayer said the application falls within the
code.  The addition will be a two-story frame and masonry
addition with classrooms, administrative offices, rest
rooms, and multi-purpose rooms.
    Jeff McInturf, Building Committee Chairman, said
the only difference between the original application and
this one is the stairway.  They can do vinyl or brick and
would like to keep that optional because of the cost.  It
is currently brick.  They can put trim around the windows
if desired.
    Mr. Parris is concerned about the building looking
like a “patchwork quilt.”  It should be finished as it was
started.  They wanted to break up the expanse of wall with
vinyl and brick.  
    Leon Habegger said there will be shutters to
match, and all windows will match.  They will remove
exterior stairway plans in order to fit better with the
driveway.
    Mr. Burriss has concerns about material changes.  
The joint between the existing brick and proposed vinyl is
not a particularly good one.  He would like to see the
transition detail.  If it’s vinyl, some corner posts would
help.  There are no new shutters on the drawing, and we
would like to have drawings as close to what is chosen as
possible.  Viewing the complete finished drawing might
cause us to view it differently.  We would like it to have
continuity and to see trim detail.
    Mr. McInturf can appreciate that but would like
GPC to approve the drawing in brick and then if it becomes
a financial issue, leave it open to come back with samples
of trim board.
    Mr. Parris would be hesitant to do that  You could
table this and get some of the details worked out and
bring it back to us.  Or we could vote tonight.
Mr. McInturf requested tabling and returning in two weeks.
    Mr. Riffle said the applicant talked about trying
to make it look not quite so big.  If they took out the
brick and had only vinyl, it would look even bigger.  Mr.
McInturf said they wanted to make it look attractive. Mr.
Parris assumed what was presented at the work session
would be the selected plan.  

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION WITH APPROVAL OF
APPLICANT.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Genesis Land Development – lot split

    Mr. Strayer said the property is in the township
and the village.  
At first the applicant asked for access on Milner Road for
seven lots (3-9). But now they are seeking five cuts and
two shared driveways.  Our traffic engineer has analyzed
sight distances and made the recommendation that he would
want to limit the number of access points and suggested
that we ask for some shared driveways, but there are
utility restrictions.  
    Catherine Cunningham, Attorney, explained the
problem with two different jurisdictions.  Ron Beitzel,
the owner, and Mr. Strayer went out to look at the area
and along with the engineer came up with this plan.  The
applicant agrees with it.  
    Ms. O’Keefe said GPC received a letter about storm
water runoff, and Mr. Riffle wondered why there could not
be a single access onto Jones Road.  Mr. Wilkenfeld added
that the village will have to maintain Milner Road, and
perhaps an annexation should be considered.
    Mr. Parris said the deeds allow one access off
Jones Road.  In the future when Milner is expanded, it
would be up to the village to pay for redoing all the curb
cuts in an instance where the owner is fully aware of
construction  presently.  His other concern is storm water
issues on Milner that would require further improvements
by the village.
    Ms. Cunningham said part of the problem is that
Milner is in the village and the property is not, so they
have jurisdiction.  The lot split can be done as long as
it is more than 5 acres and a public street.  This is not
a regular lot split; there is not a common owner of
property.  There is no common road, and it won’t have
public utilities or service road.  This would meet those
standards.  The village is limited with road frontage.  
Milner does not have culverts and the village maintains
it. The houses will be far back off the road.  There are
houses on the south side, and what they are proposing is
consistent with the other side and what has been approved
by the village.  All safety requirements are met.  The
village has not adopted any specific standards on access
points.  It is a rural area with large lots and the
drainage issues would be the access points of driveways on
the road.  This would be part of the building inspection
process.  Runoff would have to be controlled on site.  
They are not aware of any specific drainage issues.
    Mr. Parris said for a property that did not have
access rights from Milner, they are asking us to give them
the rights, and that is a village issue and relates to
future expense.  If the village grants those rights which
you do not enjoy now, when Milner becomes improved it
would be up to the village to repave.
    Ms. Cunningham said in terms of the ability to
access the roadway, she is not aware of deed
restrictions.  The village has no rights over deed
restrictions.  The Ohio Revised Code only mentions if they
are on an existing street and over 5 acres.  
    Ms O’Keefe said this sounds like an issue for our
Law Director, and Ms. Cunningham said she has discussed
this with him, and the village has no jurisdiction.  The
village does not refer to curb cuts and has no authority.  
They are trying to come up with access points to meet
everyone’s approval.
    Mr. Strayer was not present for that conference
but has talked to the Law Director.  The village does not
have an approved access management plan, but the Master
Plan says that the area is for future growth and there
should not be more curb cuts on the controller road than
you need.  The traffic engineer recommended it as a
collector road, but we do not have an access management
plan.  He did say that the way it was proposed, it was on
the borderline and met standards for distances, but given
the terrain and average speed, it would be best if they
limited curb cuts to less than 7.  He was in agreement
with the traffic engineer.  He does not have a report from
the engineer but can get one.
    Mr. Parris asked whether staff is amenable to this
plan, and Mr. Strayer said since they do not have an
approved access management plan to govern this issue, they
have to rely on the report of the traffic engineer re
safety. The Master Plan is not completely enforceable so
they cannot refer to it.  
    Ms. O’Keefe asked shouldn’t we wait until its
complete, and Mr. Strayer said they have already applied.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld would like more definition. If it’s
something we are compelled to do, we should work to
everyone’s satisfaction and everyone should be involved.
    Ms. Cunningham said that’s why they are here.  
They believe you do not have the right to deny it.  When
they submitted the original plan, that was best for the
applicant but the village does not have standards or a
permit process.  It’s controlled by subdivision
regulations.  They are here because they want to be good
neighbors.
    Mr. Salvage had concerns:  (1) where does this
information about deed restrictions come from?  He was
told it comes from a letter.  (2) For 5 acres or larger,
the state has a law that we do not control splits in
township areas.  (3) Regarding storm drainage, these are
large houses and large lots.  It’s a small amount of
property to be developed and create storm water
questions.  Most can be controlled onto the road.  He does
not think the county has a storm water plan to apply
here.  With the way this property lies, you could probably
direct storm water to natural drainage in your building
restrictions.  The attorney agreed.
    Ron Beitzel, owner, had some responses to these
concerns:  (1) Access.  With a natural gas pipeline
easement line between Lots 6 and 7, putting a road across
that is impractical.  (2) Regarding deed restrictions,
they have done title searches showing no such
restriction.  (3) Regarding drainage:  Since they are
combining a couple of access points, they are controlling
drainage.  (4) Lots 6,7,8, and 9 are on a slope.
    Joan Crone, neighbor, presented a letter from 6
residents along the road.  They are requesting that the
GPC consider doing no curb cuts on Milner.
    (1)Why not put a driveway at the north end and all
of the lots could access Jones Road there?  These are .4
miles from Milner on a curve.
    (2) It’s the village taxpayers who pay for these.
    (3) While it’s true that the 250’ separation is
done by law, for lots 7,8, and 9 they are proposing to put
a 16’ driveway and a 24’ double driveway.  Immediately
across the street are three driveways.  If you have 800’
approaches and 25‘ stopping distances you can only have
three driveways and you already have 3.  Any more would be
dangerous.
    (4) If someone is pulling out on a 32’ road, it’s
safer.  Milner is 16’ wide. When a car pulls onto Milner
they take the whole road.
    (5) The curb cut design has not yet been approved
by LCPC, we can’t really say what will happen.  The
residents are asking that you not grant the curb cuts.
    Carl Stroud said the curb cuts would not affect
him as much as it would others. Fifteen years ago they had
the same discussion with the Murphys and at that time the
property was in the township.  We all agreed to work off
one access road and did not put curb cuts onto Milner.  
They were added afterwards.
    Regarding drainage, they agreed to a pond.  He
does not know how much was written down 25 years ago or
how binding anything was onto Milner, but the Murphys made
that agreement.  Since then the traffic has increased and
with school busses you have to pull off the road to let
them pass.
    Bill Crone has strong opinions with regard to the
development with a number of issues.  
(1)    This development is 52 acres on a 16’ old farm
road which has never been designated as a collector road,
which requires 32’ width. We have a 15’ road, and trying
to maneuver around the school bus is a challenge.  
(2)    The attorney has indicated there’s no issue.  She
says she is entitled to as many cuts as she wants but the
village controls the streets and the village has the right
to control what happens in the street so far as public
welfare.  That is a legal issue.  Look at the law of Ohio
regarding curb cuts.  We ask the Law Director for a legal
opinion regarding what the village has to say about curb
cuts and access.  A 1952 Ohio Supreme Court case says a
property only is entitled to access on a street if their
property abuts.  When you have a 52-acre lot with access
onto Jones, the issue is: Is it necessary to have access
onto Milner.  It is not necessary because you already have
access.  That case has not been overruled.  
(3)    We see no survey on these lots on Milner.  They
have never submitted dimensions on Milner.  There are no
berms.   A residential collector requires 32’wide and 8’
berms.  Then you can allow driveways every 250’ along each
side of the road. The driveways already on Milner have
taken up the area’s dimensions for the three driveways.  
Given the legal issues and safety issues and the watershed
aspect, I think we need more legal advice.  The front area
will have to be filled in.  What’s going to happen to
surface water runoff?  The Master Plan says we are not to
disturb natural areas or surface runoff.  
    Ms. Cunningham said this is a chicken and egg
issue.  As it is not a collector road, we are not
obligated to provide a road .  If it is a collector,
sharing driveways should be in order.  If it is not a
collector, shared driveways are not necessary
    Mr. Parris thinks we have had enough testimony but
let John Lewis speak.
    John Lewis said his uncle bought that 100 acres
and his aunt gave 37 acres for a park.  He does not have
anything in writing, but when they annexed that property
they told him he could have as many curb cuts as he
wanted.  They told him it is not a problem because it was
in the township, not in the village.  When they combined 7
access points, that was better.  Drainage can be worked
out.  He thinks this is fair as it has been worked out.
    
    Mr. Parris closed the testimony.  His big
disappointment is that we do not have a lot of information
from our own people, engineers and law directors.  He is
sure everybody’s information is the best they could
gather, but there are conflicts as to what the law does or
does not allow.  His suggestion is to table this until we
can consult with our own staff and get their opinion as to
what do we look at. Some of these issues may not be valid.
    Mr. Salvage agreed.  We have no ability to enforce
guidelines of the Master Plan. We are not sure what the
state law says and we need an opinion from the law
director.  He questioned the 24’ driveways coming onto a
16’ wide street. They have not requested 24’ driveways
        Mr. Wilkenfeld stated that one of the
chief things at issue is that we don’t have 9 lots; we
only have one lot. Why are we addressing this until we
have 9 lots?  Who pays for all this after the fact?  He is
not convinced that road is safe now.  Five people here
agree with the Crones.
    Mr. Salvage said we need to address this and the
other lot splits.  They may not have to come to us.  Mr.
Wilkenfeld said if Mr. Salvage is right, this is exactly
what they were talking about.  Cutting up one piece of
property and requiring a lot more curb cuts.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE 04-010 AT TGE REQUEST OF THE
APPLICANT. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Salvage would like to put restrictions on the lots to
mitigate any storm water concerns.

 Tim Ryan, 127 South Prospect Street – Sign

    Mr. Strayer said the applicant is unable to be
present tonight, but they are asking for an additional
sign hang below to a freestanding sign with two businesses
on it.  This will be blue and white and falls within the
code.
Mr. Parris said this is consistent with what we have
approved in the past.
 MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-014 AS
SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  Mark Clapsadle, 1075 Newark-
Granville Road - Modification      Mr. Strayer said this
application for modification of a previously approved
application is for expansion of a second floor dormer from
3 to 4 windows to provide more space.  Changes would not
be visible from the street.  
    Mr. Clapsadle added that they have found it
necessary to expand the space because of tight space
upstairs

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-012.  MR.
BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Burriss complimented the applicant on the clarity of
the drawings submitted.  Fred Abraham, 470 South Main
Street - Sign     Mr. Strayer said the application is for a
6’x3’ wall sign on the south wall for an additional
service with the complex.  The sign will be 18 sq.ft.,
which falls within code, but it will have 4 colors because
of the red bell in the corporate logo. The code only
allows for one wall sign per property and this will be the
6th on the building.  He is going to remove a sign from
the door and put it on the window.
    Fred Abraham said originally there were 6 colors.  
Members suggested ways to reduce the colors to 3.
    The building is really two buildings close
together but considered as one.  
    Mr. Parris said the multiple service nature of the
building is consistent with arguments we have made
before.  The sheer size of the building makes the signs
minimal.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld said all the other signs face south
and nothing faces the road, and you will not see the signs
unless you are in the front.  You will only see this new
sign from the road.

    Mr. Parris applied the criteria to the application:
A.  That special circumstances or conditions exist which
are peculiar lands or structures in the same zoning
district.   Special circumstances are the size of the
building relative to most other businesses in the village
we deal with. This is a multi-tenant building and approval
of the signs is consistent with decisions we have made in
the past at The Elms, the office complex, Taylor’s, etc.
    B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions
of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. We
have made similar arguments and similar concerns in other
situations.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  We have changes
the sign code several times and the application would
probably have been in compliance with the variance.
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.  N/A
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 will not do so.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES FOR SIGNS FOR
THIS APPLICATION.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

    Regarding the 4 colors on the sign, Mr. Wilkenfeld
said that the applicant has tried to go with 3 colors.  He
could take out the red bell, but Mr. Salvage said the
three colors and the bell are within the corporate logo,
which he cannot change.  Mr. Parris noted that based upon
the fact that his name on the shop is consistent with
other signs on the building. Mr. Parris said we made an
exception for Spring Hills Church because of the
background colors.  Mr. Wilkenfeld said one of the reasons
we don’t want more colors is that we don’t want something
looking garish, but this is not garish.  Mr. Parris said
the scale of the building is large.  Mr. Salvage said we
do not have a definition of what is a color.  Is white a
color?    

A.  That special circumstances or conditions exist which
are peculiar to other lands or structures in the same
zoning district.  It makes sense for this large building,
and we have done this for other people.
    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.  
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  N/A
D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this
Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district.  We have under certain circumstances allowed
signs with more than 3 colors based upon the whole
package.  Due to the circumstances of the size of the
building and the nature of the business, we can make a
justification.
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 will not do so.
    Mr. Parris said we have justified this variance
based on the proportion of the building for the total sign
package presented to us        

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR COLORS. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-013 AS
SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Berzina Construction, 1st Federal Savings & Loan, 126 N.
Prospect St. - Sign
    (Mr. Riffle recused himself from the application.)
    Mr. Strayer said  the application is for a
temporary joint contractor sign in front of the building.  
The colors are uncertain but otherwise it is in compliance
with the code.  The applicant said there would not be more
than 3 colors and a green logo.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN LIMITED TO 3
COLORS.  FINAL APPROVAL TO BE GIVEN BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER
UPON APPROVAL OF THE COLORS.  THE TEMPORARY SIGN WILL BE
ALLOWED TO STAY UP FOR A MAXIMUM OF ONE YEAR.  MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOtION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Old Business:

Lisa Morrisette, 214 No. Pearl Street - Fence

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE
TABLE.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
    
    Mr. Strayer said the application was tabled
earlier because there was  not any site plan submitted to
show R.O.W. and fence location.  This is for relocation of
the fence to provide more side yard and construction of a
similar fence around the rest of the yard for the dog.
    Mr. Parris said we still don’t have an accurate
survey, and Ms. Morrisette said she has the survey for
when the house was closed.  The fence will go around the
yard from the corner of the porch.  She will either do a
picket fence similar to what is there now or do a lattice
fence.  It’s right on the property line.  She has talked
to the neighbor and there is no problem.  
    Mr. Burriss asked whether she was doing anything
to change the entrance of the porch, and she stated there
will be a gate.  She likes an antique style.  The style is
either picket or lattice similar to the existing with
similar white color.  Mr. Burriss is concerned about the
connection between the house and fence/gate and the
style.  Mr. Salvage thought it could be approved subject
to approval of the Village Planner.    
    
MR SALVAGE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF 04-171 WITH THE
CONDITIONS THAT (1) THE FENCE MAY OR MAY NOT BE MOVED TO
THE FRONT LINE OF THE PORCH; (2) THE NEW SECTION OF FENCE
WILL BE THE SAME HEIGHT AND COLOR AS THE EXISTING; (3) IT
WILL BE PICKET OR LATTICE OF WOOD; (4) IF YOU ARE GOING TO
ENCLOSE THE AREA BETWEEN PORCH POSTS, THAT DETAIL NEEDS TO
BE STUDIED; (4) THE WAY THE LATTICE WILL BE USED IS
IMPORTANT AND  APPLICANT WILL BRING FINAL PLANS FOR GATE
TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  

Binford Electric, BankOne, 137 East Broadway – lights
    MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF
THE TABLE.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
    
    Mr. Strayer said the application was tabled for
new lighting designs and schematic for light
disbursement.  The application is for a pair of walpaks on
either side of the awning to light up the night deposit
box for safety per instructions from BankOne corporate
policy.  
    Mr. Binford, contractor has talked to the lighting
experts and they came up with Washington Post Lights.  He
proposed 12’ high lights.
    Mr. Salvage said there is no ATM and he questioned
the need for additional light, and Mr. Parris agreed.
There is a lot of light already there, and we are trying
to reduce the light load.  Mr. Riffle stated that with the
existing lights and the proposed lights, they will be
lighting up the entire block.        
    Mr. Binford will take these comments back to the
bank and tell them you feel the current lighting is
adequate.  He requested  GPC to vote now despite the
negative reaction.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-003.  MR.
RIFFLE SECONDED AND MOTION WAS DENIED BY A VOTE OF 4 NOS
AND 1 ABSTENTION.

Binford Electric, BankOne, 484 South Main Street – lighting
The application was tabled to offer the applicant an
opportunity to come back with something more appropriate
and to provide lighting schematic.

IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO TAKE THIS OFF THE TABLE.  IT
WAS UNAMINOUSLY APPROVED.

    Mr. Binford said these are 12’ Charleston type
pole lights.  A pair of lights will be on the sides of the
building, They also propose a big wall sign off the
building on 12’ poles.  Mr. Binford checked with Ross’s
Market and they are putting in the same type of fixtures.
    Mr. Salvage said we are working at a major section
of the parking lot, and he would prefer to see this
lighting be a part of the entire package of lighting,
since the lighting is excessive.
    Mr. Riffle thought 4 lights would be sufficient.
Six lights is excessive and makes it look like a landing
strip.  Mr. Burriss agreed and did not think putting more
lights on an unattractive building is going to improve it.
    Mr. Binford said this lighting is what it would
take to fulfill BankOne requirements.
    Mr. Parris does not think he would be against a
pole light or two, but he thinks it should be incorporated
with the total package.  This is too excessive for the
circumstances.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-004.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS DENIED BY A VOTE OF 4 NOS AND 1
ABSTENTION.
    
WORK SESSION:

Arby’s, Cherry Valley Road – Site Plan

    Dave Conklin introduced Allison Hyer and Brian
Arnold and said they want to build an Arby’s at the
SuperAmerica {SA} lot.  It is one lot off the corner of
Rt. 16 and Cherry Valley on a 2.3-acre lot on a drive-
through off Cherry Valley.  It will have a brick building,
52-car parking lot, and a brick enclosed dumpster.  Cars
will enter from the rear, circle around, and pick up their
food.  They were asked to remove parking from behind the
building.  

    After a discussion of parking spaces, Mr. Salvage
thought 46 spaces would be sufficient.  
    Mr. Riffle stated that green space adds a lot
    Mr. Burriss asked whether the hedge follows the
previous shape, and he would prefer to see the hedge
follow the new contour.  
    Mr. Conklin described the dumpster, saying pick-up
is early in the morning before customers arrive. It would
have a gate.  They could add a mangate for easy access and
add a sidewalk.  
    Mr. Riffle asked about landscaping around the
dumpster and was told Yes, they want it to look nice, and
they will bring in a landscaping plan.  
    Mr. Salvage noted SA was required to provide
pedestrian and bike paths to Cherry Valley, and Arby’s
should work with SA on this.  
    If Mr. Burriss was bringing people in along SA
Way, he would like to see the front yard of Arby’s toward
SA Way.  He would have problems with the dumpster being
the first thing to be seen.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted to see more green between
the building and the cars.
    Mr. Burriss said it would be helpful if we had SA
give a drawing showing where neighboring buildings are to
see how you are relative to the structures in the entire
intersection area.
    Allison Hyer said they have to follow Arby’s
standard plan.  They have limits with what they can build
regarding driveways, brick buildings, brick under windows,
brick dumpster enclosure, AC on roof, 88 seats.  It’s not
fast food, but more of a casual dining area.
    Mr. Burriss would have trouble with the red roof
and red trim around windows and he wants to see examples
of brick.  Ms. Hyer said sometimes the red roof is more of
a brownish red.
    Mr. Burriss would promote a striped awning.  SA
did a good job of taking a corporate building and trying
to decorporatize it and detail it in a way that would be
complementary with what the commission felt appropriate.
SA did not necessarily have to do brick.
    Mr. Parris reminded them that our concern is how
it fits our code. Drive-throughs are not permitted in our
code. Trademark buildings are not allowed.  Ms. Hyer said
Arby’s would choose brick, but maybe it could have some
variation.   Mr. Strayer said drive-throughs are allowed.
    Mr. Burriss noted that Certified was designed to
fit our code, and he would ask for softening of the Arby’s
design.
    Mr. Salvage told them their challenge is to bring
in something appropriate for Granville. Take a look around
town and notice architectural features.
Mr. Parris assumes Arby’s is running into this situation
more and more often.
Ms. Hyer said there are several different designs and this
is the best one.
    Mr. Burriss said we are not trying to make the
building prohibitive, but taking off some of the red will
not cost more.  Do a general softening.  Make it
pedestrian  
friendly. Make the dumpster less visible.
Mr. Parriss said connect this to the bike path.  
    
Downtown Furniture

    Mr. Strayer said the Village has talked about
upgrading outdoor café furniture to wrought iron or some
other material. Plastic should be replaced.
    Mr. Salvage thought it could be metal or
aluminum.  People still have to come before us for
approval.  He asked Mr. Strayer to bring something in at
the next meeting.
    At one time we had a concrete table, added Mr.
Burriss, and the Deli had Coca cola umbrellas, for which
they got a permit.
    Mr. Parris would like to see no more plastic, and
Mr. Wilkenfeld recommended setting guidelines.
    Mr. Burriss said other cities have a variety of
styles, and it works.
    Mr. Burriss and Mr. Strayer will work on something
to present to us.

Finding of Fact: Mr. Salvage wanted the Findings for
Binford Electric to be written in such a way as to ensure
if it is appealed, it will be clear, and he asked Mr.
Strayer to write up a Finding, citing appropriate sections
of the code and bring it to next meeting.

 MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR
ITEMS A,B,E,F,G,H UNDER NEW BUSINESS  AND A UNDER OLD
BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT
SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE
PLANNER’S MEMO OF FEBRUARY 6, 2004.  MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  
Adjournment:  11:00 p.m. Next Meetings:   February 23 and
March 8  Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen