Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 12/12/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 12, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tom Mitchell, Constance Barsky, Carl Wilkenfeld, Tym Tyler
 Members Absent:  Tim Riffle (Chair),
Visitors Present:    Carl Strauss, Dr. and Mrs. Mark & Lia Law, Gil Krone, Omar Whisman, Lee & Kathy Cecil, Dick Rogovin, Jeff Carr, Gordon & Ellen Wilken, Jim Ogelin, Jim Silone, Ed Lowry, Kent :Pitcher, Marilyn Pitcher, Kay Carvar, Carol Kenyon, Kenneth A. Kemper,
 Also Present: Molly Roberts, Acting Village Manager; Jim Gorry, Assistant Law Director
The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of November 28:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Granville Golf Course Co., Trinity Court - Preliminary Plat

 Mr. Strayer had stated that the Law Director said our decision was wrong and must be reversed.
 Thirty-seven neighbors on Wexford and Trinity presented a petition for GPC to reaffirm its earlier decision.
 Carl Strauss presented letter to Village Council for the record, concerning drainage and runoff. 
 Richard Rogovin sent a letter explaining why the Homeowners' Association feels the earlier GPC decision was appropriate. 
 Mr. Gorry, Assistant Law Director, said the Law Director has determined that both state law and our subdivision regulations do not prevent approving the lot split before you.  You are only dealing with a lot split; other issues can be addressed when a plat is presented to you.  Under Ohio Revised Code {ORC} there is no issue here, and approval is a formality.  No discussion is in order.  Our concern is that since there is no discretion, any delay may open up the village to lawsuits
 Mr. Wilkenfeld wondered, then, why this application is before us, and Mr. Gorry said ORC 711011 defines subdivision to include (1) any division of the existing parcel, any part of which is less than 5 acres.  It also includes the plating such that roads are being opened.  (2) It also provides that splitting a lot in conjunction with granting sewer and utilities, etc, is also a subdivision. What is being requested is not a subdivision.  It has been the policy of the administration to request approval of these things by the GPC, and other municipalities have done this.  In fact, things like this can be handled administratively, but it has been the past role of the administration to run these by the GPC.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said he has never seen a situation where we were told how to vote, and Mr. Gorry said it may be that at least during his time here he does not recall a lot split where no lot was being created less than 5 acres.  This is the first one.  It is routine in communities with larger tracts of land.
 Mr. Mitchell looked at the definitions given us and saw that it conforms with not being a subdivision with one possible exception in regard to (1) the storm drainage affecting something off-site. (2) If we have no jurisdiction, he does not know how we can vote opposite of how we voted last time, but can we rescind our last vote because it is not our jurisdiction.
 Mr. Gorry said the reason this is here is that the Licking County Auditor will not approve the deed without municipal approval even though it is not a subdivision.  All communities he knows of simply approve a lot split, and you can rescind it and we will treat it administratively.
  Mr. Burriss said if we rescind, how can people address the situation?  If it is not under our jurisdiction, then what vehicle do they have to address this?
 Ms. Barsky said that given the situation requesting a lot split, the neighborhood has no opportunity to prevent a lot split, and Mr. Gorry said Yes, lot splits cannot possibly cause injury to neighbors. 
 Mr. Mitchell said Granville has no ordinance about creating this situation, and Mr. Gorry said this does not fall under the 20-acre ordinance.  We cannot prevent splits because that is in direct conflict with ORC statute. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said it is clear that the Law Director is asking us to rescind and take us out of the loop.
 Richard Rovogin thanked the group for coming out on a cold night. The Assistant Law Director suggests a conflict between state law and your ordinances.  The conflict is under 1113.02B and he would like to suggest that because litigation may result, you should (1) ask the Law Director for a written legal opinion to which we can respond.  (2) Then call another meeting.  As he reads 1113.02B it limits what you can do.  The action you took at last meeting was entirely appropriate under Granville Zoning Code.  (3) Another problem is that an application was made by Park National Bank, and a request for restrictions was made by a different party, the Golf Course.  A request for reconsideration ought to be made by the applicant. 
 Mr. Gorry said the application calls for "subdivision without plat," but this is not a subdivision.  These are small lot splits where one of the lots is less than 5 acres.  With small lots you can do that without plat.  We are not dealing with a subdivision.
 Gil Krone, a contiguous neighbor, notes that since the application states "subdivision without plat," they were all prepared to discuss that issue.    A PUD seems to be the original issue because there is a special requirement under village ordinance 1171 that specifies whenever you have PUD to be employed, the entire 94 acres has to be presented in the form of a preliminary development plan along with the application.  A plat needs to be submitted.   Technically this was supposed to be a PUD matter and it is zoned PUD.  GPC should request this of the owner, but the owner is not here.  It should not even be considered because there is no presentation given by the owner.   He suggests that with the confusion with respect to 1113 subdivision without plat, the owner should resubmit the application under the PUD along with the required development plan under 1171.
 Mr. Gorry said yes, if you look at the application, it says subdivision without plat but that is an error.  This is a straightforward lot split of 36.7 acres.  We are reconsidering the original vote by which it was denied.
 Mr. Rogovin said that would be an erroneous application and the applicant is not here to explain what he said and refile.  Mr. Gorry said the Law Director is concerned about potential liability because we don't have the legal power to deny.
Even though the application is incorrect, it is still before the GPC. 
 Ms. Barsky requests an appropriate application.  We insist that when individuals are incorrect, they must come back with a proper application. Mr. Gorry said that would be appropriate.  If you rescind, he can go to the Planning Director. This applies to municipalities if it is less than 5 acres.  It does not approve any development. 
 Mr. Mitchell asked about the zoning, and Mr. Gorry said the zoning is perfectly appropriate as long as it's consistent with law.  If you rescind this, it is still before you.
 Mr. Rogovin said if you rescind, the Law Director says it is still before you but the applicant will simply go to the village with an application.  With an application marked subdivision without plat, you have to reply to it that way.  He does not understand what the Law Director is saying about liability.  If you act to deny this, the village is liable because you handled it as a subdivision without plat because that is what it says on the application.  He does not see a liability issue.
 The representative for Bob Kent, Jeffrey P. Carr, Project Manager and engineer, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  (1) Is the lot split within the bounds of what is legally allowed by the Village?  Yes.  (2) If it is a legal split, where are the grounds for denial?  We can fix this application and come back again, but can I get some idea why it was denied?  It meets the ordinances. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said a lot of what is said is not agreed upon.  In this meeting there is a question as to who is the applicant.  Mr. Carr did not disagree, but he is hearing that everything is good to go here.
 Ms. Barsky wondered why he did not pursue this directly with the County Auditor and was told the Auditor does not do lot split because he has to go through the village.
 Mr. Burriss said before any building permit can be issued or construction, there is a long process to go through.  There are areas where public comment will be taken.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said they need to find a way to get into the subdivision, and Mr. Gorry said access issues will be addressed by this commission. 
 Mr. Burriss said if we do not rescind, it will go around us so where does our authority come from to deal with a plat? Mr. Gorry answered any development that creates a single lot with less than 5 acres must go through you.  With 5.1 acres we do not have to approve lot splits but everything else about roads because the occasion of any connected roads constitutes a subdivision.
 Jim Harmon asked whether anyone other than the owner of the property allowed to request a lot split and was told, the owner or his representative, an agent.  This is not done by someone with an interest in the property.
 Mr. Tyler noted we have an upper portion and a lower portion, and people do not want upper portion traffic going through the lower portion.  Are we giving the developer permission to go through the property?  Can we talk about access?  Mr. Gorry said there are two access routes on the preliminary plat.  It's a permanent ROW, but the engineer said that is a gas and oil easement, and the access is on Trinity.
 Gil Krone asked if they were considering Newark-Granville or Milner for access.  You would not need an extension of Trinity, just a requirement under Granville subdivision codes as one issue to be resolved in building a road.  Mr. Carr said the Law Director said that would be a good access. Village Council has deemed Trinity a collector road. 
 Mr. Krone said the developer is not going to use a roadway that exists onto Milner but rather seeks entrance to a subdivision developed in 1983 under Granville Township regulations which were based on rural classifications demanding 11/2-2 acres and a reserve of 10 acres.  They are going to wind up with ½ acre lots costing $500,000 or more. 
 Mr. Gorry said if GPC will agree to rescind its vote, he will pledge that the administration will take no action and leave the matter pending and he will submit a written memo of what is going on here and what the legal issues are.  If you deny, there is no reason to take this beyond the commission.  There's nothing wrong with keeping this matter before the commission until we resolve the issues.  If it goes beyond, that is something the Law Director says he doesn't want to happen.  If this is a PUD, we need GPC and Village Council approval.  Both PUD and subdivisions are completely covered by GPC zoning subdivision regulation and it is referendable.
 Omar Whisman said that when Bob Kent builds Bryn Du, he had a turn-around at the top of the hill.  He had to have an access road in addition to the entrance road, and there are gates at the top and bottom and they can get in a case of emergency.   Mr. Tyler noted that would come before us eventually under a preliminary plan. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld would feel more comfortable getting the written report before we vote, but Mr. Gorry said you may not be able to.  If it goes to V.C. the Law Director will ask it to be remanded to you. 
 Mr. Mitchell said there will be two parcels to deal with and it appears the developer has found a loophole and I don't know that we have any way around it.  He would suggest rescinding the vote.
 Mr. Carr said the GPC did not deny it because it was incomplete--it was an emotional decision.  If it meets the intent, then it meets the intent.  They can fix the application.
 Mark Law quoted the Finding of Fact from the last meeting, and it is copied on the last page under Finding of Fact.
Mr. Gorry said you were under the impression you were dealing with a subdivision.  This is before you tonight because the Law Director specifically directed that this be on the agenda with the request that the denial be rescinded. 
Ms. Barsky replied then it is clear that they have not reversed their decision on the subdivision.  It's based on the fact that the Law Director asked for it and this is to avoid legal issues.  She asked whether this would prejudice anything in the future, and Mr. Gorry said No.  He will cover that in the memo analyzing the issues.  If an issue comes up, GPC will consider it.  He wants to make sure all issues are resolved.  The code does allow clerical amendments, and he would not make them refile. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether we can rescind with the understanding that it will come back to us, and Mr. Gorry said Yes, the ordinances provide that this is still before you if you vacate your prior decision.  Mr. Wilkenfeld asked, Will it come back to us without the X? Can we vote the way we want to? Mr. Gorry said we make a request that you can abide by the request or not.  We hope you will give serious consideration to legal issues.
 Mr. Rogovin said the Law Director is the director of the village, but we have heard nothing from the Park National Bank about what it thinks.    How can the Law Director say this is a mistake?  It's a pure legal issue.
 Mr. Mitchell noted it would be much better for everybody concerned if they would come in with a development plan with access to Newark-Granville or rather a full plan for those 94 acres.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO RESCIND OUR VOTE FROM APPLICATION 05-178 ON THE CONDITION THAT, PER THE LAW DIRECTOR'S SUGGESTION, WE WILL GET A WRITTEN MEMO ON THE ISSUES FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY. (Burriss, Mitchell, Tyler voted Aye, and Wilkenfeld voted Nay)


Finding of Fact (from the previous meeting):   The Planning Commission found that the application for lot split did not meet with the relevant section of the Granville Zoning Code or the Ohio Revised Code.  The Planning Commission found that since the application did not include relevant studies and plans for the future build-out of the proposed 36.715 acre parcel that the application was incomplete and must be objected to.


Adjournment: 8:25.p.m.

Next Meetings:   January 9 and 25
Respectfully submitted,


Betty Hullinger

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 11/28/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 28, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:  Tom Mitchell Tim Riffle (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld, Tym Tyler
 Members Absent: Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Jackie O'Keefe
Visitors Present:   Sharon Sellito, Lee & Kathy Cecil, Renie Baker, Jeff Clark, Ed Lowry ,Alyssa Lowry, Gil Krone, Omar Whisman, David White, Jeff Carr, Lee & Kathy Cecil, Mia and Mark Law, Andy English, Jim Silone, Caryl & Ken Kenyon, Kevin Goudy, Gil & Merilyn Pitcher, Julio Valenzuela
 Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of October 24:  Page 1, in the motion under White and in the last paragraph, change Mr. Riffle to Mr. Tyler.  The same on Page 2 in the first two motions.  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Village Baker, 212 South Main Street, - Sign

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO UNTABLE THE APPLICATION.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 Mr. Strayer said the sidewalk sign was tabled because of the design.  Tonight we have a re-design with the top two lines saying "Village Baker" and the rest to remain.  Changeable copy would need a variance. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked about the color and was told it would have green words.  He noted that changeable copy only comes in bold. 
 Mr. Riffle said we talked about changeable copy in town, but this is different.  Mr. Tyler added that if we agree that most of the signs with changeable copy are OK, we won't need a variance. They also want to advertise special events going on, but we are troubled by cheap-looking signs.  If they can come up with something classier but still readable, that would be better. 
Mr. Mitchell noted what we are trying to avoid is the portable generic changeable signs.
   Mr. Strayer said there is no definition in the code book, but any time you can change words, they are changeable.  In the AROD we have the governing power over what materials are used. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO TABLE 05-172 PENDING A NEW DESIGN.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Strayer was asked to make clear to the applicants what we want--something more appealing but still readable, possibly with a border.

New Business:

Whit's, 138 East Broadway - Sign

 The left hand window sign requested would say "The Soup Loft, homemade soups to go" and would be 2.5 sq.ft., burgundy, white and grey, made of plastic stencil.
 Members had no questions regarding the application.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Granville Golf Course, Trinity Court

 In speaking with the Law Director, Mr. Strayer said the County Auditor found it necessary to get approval from the village for the lot split of 36 acres from the total 90 in the parcel.    The Law Director said there is nothing in our code on which to make an opinion.  Ohio Revised Code says anything over 5 acres is not a subdivision.  We should make a motion saying we don't object to splitting off the lot as proposed.  It's in front of us because the Auditor would not allow them to file it until they had a reading from GPC.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld would feel more comfortable if the village considers this.  Mr. Strayer would have to get the Law Director's opinion.  
 He added that there is no language to not approve in the code.  If we object, it could be that they approve it anyway. 
 Jim Silone, neighbor, stated that if this project goes through, the only access would have to go through his street.  If there is a traffic problem, they could take it up the road, but he does not want 100 cars driving through his neighborhood.
 Mr. Strayer said if this does get split by the County Auditor and Engineer and we do not approve, then the property would have 35 acres on the top and 60 acres on the bottom.
 Mr. Tyler asked what happened since our last meeting, and Mr. Strayer said talks are continuing with the Engineer and others.  He does not have the traffic report yet. 
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether this lot split application arose since the last meeting, and Mr. Strayer said automatically it would just be approved by the Auditor and Engineer, but  for some reason they wanted a read from GPC. 
Omar Whisman felt this was an "end run."  The only reason for doing this is that this is the only way to get out.  If you do grant such a lot split, then he would suggest you put a 40' easement through the lower section so the traffic can go to Newark-Granville Road.  The road would have to be built before they start building on the hill.  All those cement trucks going up that road would not be able to get out once that goes in.
Mr. Strayer said the County can override us.  Anything over 5 acres is not a subdivision and they can approve it.
Mr. Tyler wondered whether it would come back here if we do not approve it, and the answer is yes, we would make a decision on the plat.
Again Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether this was known at the last meeting, and the answer this time was No.
Ed Lowry stated that this is a peaceful area with a lot of children.  There's only one way to Newark-Granville.  They built three houses recently and the traffic increased greatly.  He is not opposed to an addition but is opposed to having only one access road
Mike Law said there is a master plan, and you should probably push the Golf Course company to find out about the plan.  You should prove that until there is a development, it should be like Fern Hill with its own road.  The other thing is we asked for no decision to be made last time, but also asked for a traffic study and what impact it would have.  He added that the County must have some issues if they want GPC to consider it before they approve it.  Mr. Strayer said we ran into this access situation on Milner Road, and it was considered a connector road by Village Council.   We have no criteria on which to make a decision on this project. 
Mr. Mitchell said we should not approve a lot split that needs access.  We need to see a plat.
Gil Krone said since we have a new application, he will comment on the lot split of 94 acres.  In order for you to do the proper plan, you need to consider the entire parcel under the village ordinances and then present it to the GPC.   They filed an application for a lot split in order to eliminate the obligation for a plan for the entire project.  In the area related to the Milner Road situation, the village was obligated to approve access for the 50-acre subdivision because it did not have authority to not approve.  Now you are being asked to vote on something you don't have any authority to vote on.  If you are going to vote on something, you should have the authority beforehand.

Mr. Wilkenfeld said this is inside the village so why is the County involved?  Mr. Strayer said it's over 50 acres and is not a subdivision.  You can wait for the plan, but you must realize the county can split it anyway since we have no authority to approve or not approve.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THE VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE STRONGLY OBJECTS TO A LOT SPLIT.  MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dave White, 204 South Main - Sign

This application is for a 2'x4' sidewalk sign and is the same sign we suggested they hang from the existing posts at the last meeting. 
Mr. Wilkenfeld reminded the group that we recommended a border.  The other sign was green and blue.  Both signs should look the same.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THAT THE SIGN BE SIMILAR TO THE HANGING SIGN; (2) THE RED BE TONED DOWN TO BURGUNDY; (3) ADD A BORDER; (4) FINAL APPROVAL WILL INCLUDE A LOOK BY MR. STRAYER AND MR. BURRISS.  MR. TYLER APPROVED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Kevin Goudy, 288 S. Granger Street - Addition

 Mr. Strayer said the original house was in bad shape.  They want to extend the main two-story house 8' to the east, raise the roof on the house, remove brick chimney, remove cement asbestos siding and replace with 4" exposure bevel siding.  They will also paint the house and add a new roof and gutters. 
 Mr. Goudy said they found a barn with vertical board and batten and a layer of paper when they removed the siding.  He showed a sample of the new siding and pictures of the roof.  He was just going to replace the front siding and then he found carpenter ants and a leaky roof, so he knew he had to enlarge the project.  The house is 1 ½ stories and they want to raise the roof and push it out 8' to make two rooms and bathroom upstairs.  He explained where the windows would go.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted to see more drawings.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:  APLICANT IS TO BRING THE VILLAGE PLANNER SOME KIND OF DRAWING OF THE NORTH ELEVATION.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 .
Work Session:
Fifth Third Bank, Cherry Valley Road. 
 The architect said they are not going any further until they know final plans for the intersection.  At the last meeting we talked about exterior forms, door treatments, lighting.  It will be brick exterior.  She left a copy of the plans for Mr. Burriss to study.
 Andy English explained how the landscaping would look, with street trees, screening of headlights, etc.  Fifth Third Bank always has nice landscaping.  They would make sidewalk connections.  
Julio Valenzuela, 331 Spellman Street - Renovation
 Bob Schilling (father-in-law) said they have done a lot of work in  preserving historical renovations in German Village, Italian Village, etc. They are building a home in Bryn Du Woods, and he showed pictures of some of the work they have done.  In this house the previous owner glossed over the problems found by the inspectors, and the applicants would not buy it until they dropped the price far enough.
 Mr. Valenzuela said the lot is 75x182 and they would split it down the middle for two houses with a shared driveway.  They will need a variance for setbacks.
 Mr. Mitchell would like to see the reactions of the neighbors on making two lots out of one.  Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested tearing it down and building a bigger house.  He would like to see written statements from the neighbors that this is OK with them.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A, B, 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 NOVEMBER 28, 2005.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:30.p.m.

Next Meetings:   December 19 (Mr. Riffle will be absent) and January 9
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 11/14/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 14, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle (Chair), Jackie O'Keefe, Carl Wilkenfeld, and Tym Tyler
 Members Absent: Tom Mitchell
Visitors Present:   Sharon Sellito, Lee & Kathy Cecil, Renie Baker, Jeff Clark, Kim Kopral, Jim Silone, Bob Kent, Jamie Smith, Dave Ulritz, Ron Jones, David Thomas, ,Alyssa Lowry, Mike Oll, Innocent Wodzisz, Jim Ogden, Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Carl Strauss, Dr. and Mrs. Mark Law, Brian & Dana Krieg, Gil Krone, Omar Whisman, Kent & Marilyn Petoker
 Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of October 24:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Dave White, 204 South Main - Sign

 The application was tabled at the last meeting pending further information.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 As presented, this request for a second free-standing sign would need a variance for a second sign.

 In answer to a question by Mr. Tyler about the post, Mr. White said it would be similar to the other, which is an old sign.  The old sign had a variance for two signs at one time.  His request is for a 4.8 sq.ft. wood sign with white background and blue and green lettering.   
Mr. Wilkenfeld thought a way should be found to put the sign on the post already there, and Mr. White said the post is old and frail and the sign hangs from a chain, so some modification would be required.  He wondered whether he would have to re-apply.
Mr. Tyler said we could approve this with the provision that the Village Planner give final approval.  Mr. Wilkenfeld said it is OK to put in the new post and put the old sign and the White's new sign on the new post.  We are trying to limit the number of signs.    Mr. White noted that he might want a sidewalk sign later.
Mr. Burriss said typically we like to have the graphics framed with a border, which is consistent with other signs and seems more finished.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) ERECT A NEW POST FOR THE NEW SIGN AND THE OLD SIGN; (2) THE OLD POST IS TO BE TAKEN DOWN; (3) POSTS ARE TO BE THE SAME SIZE AS REMOVED SIGN; (4) ADD A BORDER; (5) VILLAGE PLANNER TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE POST.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street - Fence

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Strayer said the application is for a fence which will be the same style of fence as already on the property but it will only be 42" high across the front instead of 72":  He showed pictures of the yard and aerial photos.  It is an in-ground concrete spa with a cover.
Mr. Tyler noted that tonight we are simply looking at the enclosure, and we need to see exactly where the fence will be located.
Barbara Franks reviewed his history of the square footage  and the distances between spa and property line.
Mr. Riffle is still concerned about privacy issues, but it falls within the code.  Sharon Sellito wanted to speak, but the Chair said we will not take public comments because we have been over this so many times previously. This is a public meeting but not a public hearing.   

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR FENCE WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: (1) THE FENCE IS TO BE PUT IN THE GROUND BEFORE THE SPA GOES IN; (2) THE VILLAGE PLANNER TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL; (3) SPA WILL BE 10'X10'; (4) SPA WITH APRON IS 14'X14'; (5) A 2' APRON WILL BE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SPA; (5) EDGE OF GRASS IS 10' FROM THE REAR FENCE AND WEST SIDE FENCE; (6) FENCE ON WEST SIDE COMES OFF SOUTHERNMOST POST ON WEST SIDE; (7) FENCE ON EAST COMES OFF THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Twig, 454 S. Main Street - Sign


Mr. Strayer said the applicant is not here, but the 6 sq.ft. blue and white wall sign will be upgraded with changed text and border. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Innocent Wodzisz, Sidewalk Sign

 To identify a photography business above Bank One, the applicant wishes an orange, black, and silver plastic sidewalk sign.  In the application, it is the photo on the left side and will be 25" x 45".  Mr. Burriss reminded him the sign is to be outside only during business hours.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Mill, 400 South Main Street - Sign

Mr. Strayer said in March we approved a temporary sidewalk sign for six months, and now they would like to extend that for another 6 months

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.   MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Golf Course Co., Trinity Court - Preliminary Plat

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant is presenting an introductory preliminary plat for a subdivision of 32 units to come off Trinity Court.  We are still awaiting reports from department heads and Village Engineer and Traffic Engineer. It is a total of 36 acres, of which 32 acres are buildable land with 3 acres for reserve and right of way.  Trinity Court is extended to serve as access point.  When Wexford was approved, there was an easement put in, which is for this proposal.
 Ms. O'Keefe wanted to know what kind of houses will be built and was told by Mr. Kent that they will be like the Bryn Du Woods homes, $500,000-600,000 homes.
 The woman who is president of the Residents Association at Bryn Du said they have concerns about the density and the amount of traffic to be generated.  What Mr. Kent proposal is denser than what we have here.  Lots average less than one acre, and most of the existing houses have two acres or more.
 Ms. O'Keefe wanted to know plans for future access.  Jeff Clark, Engineer for Mr. Kent, explained where it would be.  It is a steep slope so they followed the ridge. There will be a stub there for emergency vehicles.
 Mr. Strayer said this would be 32 units over 30 acres and would require a variance from the one-per-acre rule.  If the reserve area were to be given to the village, that would have to be subtracted.  If the Residents Association kept the reserve, it would not be included in the density total because it will not be deeded to the village. 
 Mr. Clark said the lots with sewer are smaller.  The sewer will extend up further.
 The engineer said they have talked about how traffic comes off Trinity Court.  It's a three-way intersection and will remain and there will be an island with grass median.  They could not put in a roundabout. The traffic review will concentrate on Wexford/Jones intersection. 
 Carl Strauss stated that the pond is his, and the way they have set this up, there is a drainage going across his yard, which holds septic and leach bed.  Those things need to be taken into account.  He thinks drainage should go into the storm.  He also wants an easement for access to his 15 acres.  The engineer said they can definitely look at these items. There is a large ridge, a ravine, and a wooded area, so the natural lay of the land will be followed.   He showed the group how the drainage would course down the hill. 
 Gil Krone said the extension is said to be an easement, but the original 1983- approved development showed differently.  It is a 200' access for future access.  The developer who created the plat reserves his intention to use that for access.  In order to create an effective dedication for a roadway, there has to be a present intent, which should have occurred in 1983.  There has never been any change in the developer's intent in regard to making it a dedicated easement.  Mr. Strayer will talk to the Law Director about this.  Mr. Krone said there is a three-acre wetland, and he explained where water runs into the area. 
 Jim Ogden's concern is with the access also.  The access to the property from the south was discounted much too quickly.  Mr. Strayer said they will look at this.  There are considerable elevation problems.  We don't want to make public roadways that are so severe as to be undrivable, but we need more than one access into the subdivision.
 Warren Whisman has lived in Erinwood 19 years, and several times he has almost been rear-ended on Jones.  He requested a time-study on the traffic study. Mr. Tyler noted that there will be a lot of traffic at Bryn Du Mansion.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED  

Village Baker, 212 South Main Street - Sign

 Mr. Strayer said the new baker wants a new sign with changeable letters, which is not allowed in the village.  Because of other signs in the village with messages that change, this is not considered a temporary sign.
 Tom Wenway (?) said his goal is to promote community activities.  The current sign is a stagnant sign, and they want to invite customers to attend activities and eat goodies. Mr. Strayer said we permit blackboard or erase marker boards but none with changeable letters. 
 Mr. Tyler wants to get creative and come up with something not quite as commercial looking, something with consistent fonts. 
Mr. Burris said it took a long time to get the original sign the way we wanted it.  Could we work for something with The Village Baker at the top and four lines of smaller type below?  We want to be consistent throughout the village, and we want the sign to look like it belongs there.  
Jim Kopral, owner, said they are looking for something with driver impact.
Mr. Riffle would be more in favor of changeable information below the top saying "The Village Baker."  He wants the applicants to have what they want while at the same time keeping it consistent with other village signs. 
MR. TYLER MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE FOLKS AT VILLAGE BAKER WORK WITH MR. STRAYER IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS TO DESIGN A MORE SUITABLE SIGN.  MR. STRAYER WILL EMAIL THE COMMITTEE.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Brian Kreig, 226 East Maple - Addition

 Mr. Kreig noted they received a variance from BZBA and they refined the elevation according to GPC's recommendations. 
 Mr. Burris expressed his appreciation and thanks for Mr. Kreig's patience in dealing with the application.
 Mr. Kreig said it would be wood-sided in the back and front. They are debating shingle vs. standing seam metal.  Wood windows, standard 4" trim.  They want to match what's there now.   New windows will be 2 over 2 for the renovated porch.
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE WITH CONDITION:  (1) UPPER EAST WINDOWS TO BE 2 OVER 2.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Fifth Third Bank, Cherry Valley Road. 
 They want to build a bank at the SuperAmerica site, with three drive-throughs.  It would be a neutral color, with shutters and wood trim of a taupe color.  Asphalt shingles, weathered wood-look on dimensional shingles.
 Mr. Burris said they heed a landscape plan. He wants more architectural detail rather than more glass and a nicer or paneled door.  We need a sign package, sidewalk plan, and lighting plan.  Speedway needs to provide a temporary plan to ODOT, and then it goes to Village Council.  Mr. Wilkenfeld said SuperAmerica would have right-in only.  Mr. Strayer said the interchange is not certain yet.  If Cherry Valley is an up-and-over, it would make Fifth Third Bank's location difficult.  Not knowing what ODOT wants to do scares him.
 The woman representative said there will be ground-mounted signs with poles and under-canopy lighting.  Trash will be privately picked up. 
 Mr. Strayer requested Fifth Third to contact District V at ODOT about their plans before going further.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A and B UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS A,B,C,F 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 NOVEMBER 14, 2005.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9:12.p.m.

Next Meetings:  November 28 and December 19
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 10/24/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 24, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle (Chair), Jackie O'Keefe, Carl Wilkenfeld, Tym Tyler, and Tom Mitchell
 Members Absent:
Visitors Present:  Robert Hawk, Bill Heim, Sharon Sellito, Kim Ball, David Ball, Jeremiah Conkle, J. Dolly Conkle, Ed Meurer
 Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of September 26:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Twigs, South Galway Drive - Sign

 For the Tour of Homes, the TWIGS want a temporary freestanding sign at Newark-Granville and Cherry Valley on Fackler's property.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Robert Hawk, 236 West Elm Street - Gate
 
 Mr. Strayer said that the applicant wishes a gate between the east side of house and the existing wall to open up to the back yard.
Mr. Hawk added that the color of the gate is the same family color as the doors on the house.
Mr. Burriss asked whether it will be in front of the hose bed and was told it will be behind. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR GATE AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dave White, 204 South Main Street - Sign

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes a freestanding sign on the South Main Street side of the building on the north side of the sidewalk, where there is already one sign.  The code only calls for one and this would be two. The front door is on the South Main side, and he made the recommendation that the sign hang onto the existing sign.
 Mr. Burriss said we have always had combined signs. 
 Mr. Mitchell asked whether there are other businesses with more than one sign and Mr. Strayer said there might be one.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld couldn't tell exactly what the sign would look like
 Ms. O'Keefe is wary of setting precedents.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted to table this until we have more information.  The applicant is not here tonight.
Mr. Burriss wanted Mr. Strayer to tell the applicant that we are all in favor of a single sign post, but this is not sufficient information to approve the sign.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION UNTIL MORE INFORMATION IS RECEIVED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

David Ball, 508 West College Street - Lot Split

[Mr. Riffle recused himself from the application.] 
Mr. Strayer said in this type of lot split, subdivision without plat, there are requirements within the SRD to limit frontage and area for the subdivided lots. 
The property has been surveyed, and the surveyor, Mr. Conkle, said the original tract was two lots when the Hoffmans owned it. The tract was then combined into one parcel for tax purposes.  The surveyor went back 10' instead of the original 5' to allow more room for the driveway to the lot line so neither lot would have problems with access.  A 2,000 sq.ft. house can go in there and fit within all regulations.  He explained that the driveway can go anywhere on the street frontage
 Ms. O'Keefe noted that visibility from the existing driveway is difficult, and Mr. Conkle showed where the setback lines for a house would be. 
 He said there is room for one parking space on the street.  Some trees would have to be removed for a house.
 Mr. Burriss asked about drainage issues, and Mr. Strayer said drainage for new construction would be handled during the application process.  There is room for a retention area.
 The woman who lives next door was concerned about notification and Mr. Strayer explained the regulations.  She was also concerned about safety on the dangerous curve and how a new house would impact her property.  She would rather not have a house on that lot

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Patrick Hull, 335 West Elm Street - Addition

 Mr. Strayer said this application is for a small addition onto the rear of the house.  The walk-out basement will be filled in under the bump-out.  They are not changing the footprint.
Mr. Hull said he bought Tom Mitchell's house, and the plan will add 72 sq.ft. to the basement.  The plan is very simple and should help with the heating of the house. They will pour a concrete slab for ceramic tile, and the windows and siding will match the house.  They will move the door (if in good condition) and window presently in the basement to the new area.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.   MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Edward Meurer, 2402 Newark-Granville Road - Addition

 Mr. Strayer said they want to add 1141 sq.ft. Addition and the application will require a variance for being within 100' of the TCOD.  It is 98' and it would go to 83' with new addition.    Since it is more than 25% of the house, the addition falls within the AROD. 
 Mr. Meurer said they will use flat partyline 9" siding, supposed to match the existing, and the paint and roof tiles will match. They will extend the house 16 ½' beyond the original house.  Mr. Strayer said it will be only 6' because Newark-Granville runs at a skew there.  Lots of houses in the area have less than 100' setback.
 Mr. Meurer said they will try to meld both windows as much as possible.  They will add a porch and tie it in with the addition.   
 Mr. Wilkenfeld is having a problem with the part that sticks out from the house, and Mr. Meurer said the floor plan works well and allows the living room to connect to the dining room.  Their goal was to meld new and old and thought the porch tied them together well.  There will be a side entrance to the porch. 
 Mr. Burriss likes the two gables on the front.  He asked whether others would be more comfortable with a pair of double hung windows, and consensus agreed with the suggestion, as did Mr. Meurer.  Mr. Burriss said it would be consistent with the vocabulary on that side and would give plenty of light; it would also be more consistent.  That would deemphasize the bump-out.   He said he would like to see an overall map showing location of neighboring houses. 
 Mr. Mitchell said the slope of the roof goes into the house and was concerned about the meeting of roofs.  Mr. Meurer said they will tie it in with the gutter.  They are aware that there won't be a light, but they have talked to builders and they thought it could be made to work.  Water runs into the flashing and runs down. 
 Mr. Riffle thought the big window was a strategically odd piece of vertical window among the horizontal windows.
 Mr. Meurer said there would be a brick walk from the driveway to the porch.  He showed them a smaller hand-drawn plan, and members thought the computer rendition makes it look huge, but the little plan looks more reasonable.
 Mr. Riffle said they will lose a little pediment.  He wants to pull porch roof to the edge of the house.  A double-hung window would be fine.
 Mr. Tyler wanted to move the porch over to connect both edges of the house. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:  (1) THE ROOF OF THE PORCH WILL COME TO THE EDGE OF THE HOUSE ON THE WEST; (2) STAIRS WILL MOVE FROM SIDE OF PORCH TO THE FRONT; (2) THE 6' BUMP-OUT WOULD HAVE TWO SMALL WINDOWS INSTEAD OF ONE LARGER ONE; (4) THIS IS CONTINGENT UPON BZBA APPROVAL (IT'S ALREADY ENCROACHING).  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A,B,D,E, AND F 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 OCTOBER 24, 2005.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:10.p.m.

Next Meetings:   November 14 and 28
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 9/26/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 26, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle (Chair), Jackie O'Keefe, Carl Wilkenfeld
 Members Absent: Tym Tyler, Tom Mitchell
Visitors Present:  Mildred Moss, Louis Rodewig, Jodie Schlmidt, Ned Roberts, Amber Mitchell
 Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of September12: Page 3, Line 3, add and the applicant was willing to do so.
Page 3, Line 9 from bottom, change to "Mr. Riffle wants it 2' farther back."  
Page 2, line 1, change to Bernardita.
 MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Dan Rogers - 210 East  Maple Street - Spa -THIS APPLICATION WAS TABLED AT REQUEST OF APPLICANT.

New Business:

Louis Rodewig, 234 N. Pearl Street - Gate Replacement
 
 Mr. Strayer said that currently there is a gate in the drive, but it is one full piece and now they want it in two halves to swing into the sidewalk.  It will have two swinging gates with the same material and same color.  He said the village advocates fences not blocking sidewalks.

Mr. Rodewig said no other changes are being made.  It will have white pickets hinged at both gates. The present gate is over 11', hinged on one side only.  The gate is difficult to operate-it sags and twists and it blocks a sidewalk when opened fully. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-143.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James Young, 105 N. Prospect Street - Awning Replacement

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to replace a deteriorating awning at Kussmaul with a more durable standing seam galvanized metal awning. 
 In his application, Mr. Young stated that this design would be consistent with the architectural history of the building's use as a warehouse during canal days. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether this material was appropriate and was told that several have standing seam. 
 Ms. O'Keefe asked about the color and  Mr. Burriss said either GPC or Mr. Strayer would need to approve the color. Mr. Riffle thought it would be OK if it blended in with the building.
 Mr. Riffle asked whether there were other galvanized metal in the village and was told no; most are fabric. 
 Mr. Burriss liked the standing seam but is not quite sure of the galvanized.  Mr. Wilkenfeld agreed and Mr. Strayer said he thinks Mr. Young would find this acceptable. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-144 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPROPRIATE METAL COLOR WILL COMPLEMENT OR BLEND IN WITH THE BUILDING.  MR. STRAYER WILL TAKE A FINAL LOOK AT IT.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James Young, 140 E/ Broadway - Signs

 Mr. Strayer said Mr. Young will remove existing signs and replace with a wall sign and two window signs.  This meets all sections of the code. The signs will be compatible with the neighboring signs  (1) The side door sign will be for identification to delivery drivers;  (2) The sign on the side window  identifies the store; (3)  the 12-inch K will replace current signage in the two front windows, and it and the KUSSMAUL GALLERY below it will be silver leaf vinyl; it will have a running  little stream of wording describing the content of the store; (4) the front wall sign is above the awning, dark green background, letters 3-dimensional, "galvanized metal" look, with a frame surrounding the sign

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE SIGN PACKAGE 05-145.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jodie Schmidt, 218 E. Maple St. - Garage

 Mr. Strayer said this application for a buggy barn went before BZBA and received variances for side and rear setbacks.  The current garage loads onto the alley, and the new one would load onto the concrete pad.  It's 1' from side and 3 ½' into the setback.  BZBA talked about elevation on west side and whether it includes windows.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked if there will be a second story, and Ned Roberts said it will be 1½ stories with 12' of living space at the center of the building upstairs and the rest is sloped.
 Mr. Schmidt said the space is for storage and a place to work out.  Now they enter from the alley, and it would be safer and have better visibility entering from the side. 
 Ned Roberts said there will be windows on the west; Bernardita Llanos requested two windows, centered, with flower boxes on the lower level.  Ned Roberts said the windows will match the gable windows.
 Regarding lighting, there will be foot lighting.  Mr. Schmidt said they are not lighting up the neighborhood.  The lighting package is not complete, and Mr. Strayer will need to take a look at it when it's ready. 
 Mr. Burriss asked whether trash cans will be inside or outside and was told that now they are outside but with the new garage they will be inside.
 Discussion ensued about how close other garages in the alley were and most of them are well into the setback minimum.  Mr. Strayer said BZBA wanted to be sure everything was consistent on the alley, and the size of this building would be consistent. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-148 FOR GARAGE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THE LIGHTING WILL BE WALL LANTERNS OR OTHER LIGHTING TO BE APPROVED BY MR. STRAYER; (2) ADD TWO WINDOWS ON LEFT SIDE TO MATCH GABLE END WINDOWS.  .  MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-139 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A,B,C,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 SEPTEMBER 26, 2005.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  7:31 p.m.

Next Meetings:   October 10, Columbus Day, no meeting unless something comes up. 

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger