Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 6/13/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 13, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle (Chair), Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe
Members Absent: Tym Tyler, Carl Wilkenfeld 
Visitors Present:  Michael Dager, Ray and Sherry Paprocki, Lindsay Cole, Carol Whitt, Sharon Sellito, David Horning, Joe Gardner
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of May 23, 2005:  Two-thirds of the way down Page 1, change Mr. Riffle to Mr. Tyler.  Also third line up. 
Page 3; change Father Anke to Father Enke in line 5.
Halfway down, change Mr. Tyler to "Mr. Riffle thought that since there is a lot of confusion,"   Page 5, Line 10 and Line15, change Mr. Tyler to Mr. Riffle.
Page 6, line 3 add "Rt. 37 intersection."
Page 6, line 8, change 47% to 40%.
Page 7; change Mr. Gorey to Mr. Gorry.  (Mr. Tyler will be absent)
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street - Site Improvements
Application was tabled until BZBA grants approval of the variance.  Sharon Sellito was very concerned about the illegal drainage pipe running onto her property and the fact that he has already exceeded the 50% lot coverage.

South Cherry Valley - New Building

 Application tabled since Speedway will need to do new traffic and engineering studies.

Village of Granville - Front Doors
Application was tabled at applicant's request.

New Business:

Harvey Shapiro, 329 East College Street - Fence
 
 The owners wish to make improvements to the house:  (1) add wood privacy fence to match side fence; (2) add hand rail at front door; (3) add driveway gate; and (4) add cupola on garage.
Mr. Dager explained that the sides of the fence are already there, but they want a fence to enclose the pets.  It will be a wood 72" fence and will match the others in style and stain.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-074 AS PRESENTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Anderson Layman Co., 80 Westgate Drive - Temporary Sign


This will be a standard for sale sign on the building side, facing Rt. 16.  This is the first time such a sign will be put on the side of a building, but GPC can approve it.  The sign will be there for a year or until they make the sale. 
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-078 WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT REMAINS IN PLACE FOR ONLY ONE YEAR.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

David Horning, 310 Pearl Street - Rebuilding

   The house suffered much damage in the ice storm, and part of it has been demolished.  Now he wishes to replace the one-car garage with a 20'x20' two-car garage. The driveway will remain gravel. The second floor of the house will be replaced, and the aluminum siding will be replaced with fiber cement clapboard siding.  The second floor footprint will be expanded by 8'.  Replacements will be consistent with the house and with the neighborhood.  Joe Gardner noted that the garage will be expanded inward into the yard.  The roof will be 30-year dimensional shingles.
 Mr. Mitchell asked about windows, and they will be 4 over 4.   
 Mr. Burriss asked about the current porch posts, and Mr. Gardner said they will retain them if they can be salvaged, but he doubts it.  Mr. Burriss stated that the porch is the only significant part of the house architecturally.  Mr. Gardner said that for trim there will be corner boards, one wrap piece.  This will be consistent on the garage as well.  Mr. Burriss asked about window replacement, and Mr. Gardner said yes, and he explained other windows in the house.  Mr. Burriss wishes to see as much consistency as possible.  Ms. O'Keefe asked if windows have to be replaced, must they be replaced with 4 over 4?  It might not be possible, given the internal structure around the windows, but the applicant should save the windows if possible.
 Mr. Burriss thinks the proposed expansion is appropriate and will not detract from the house.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-079 WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT: (1) RAILING OPENS AT CENTER OF FRONT DOOR; (2) SAVE OR DUPLICATE PORCH COLUMNS; (3) FIRST FLOOR WINDOWS ARE TO BE SAVED, BUT IF REPLACED, USE 4 OVER 4 LIKE THE SECOND FLOOR AND KEEP THEM THE SAME SIZE; (4) FIBER CEMENT SIDING; AND (5) ADD CORNER TRIM BOARD.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Cheryl Paprocki, 311 East College Street - Deck

 The applicant wishes to add a 14'x8' deck at the rear, 9" off the ground and reached by three steps out of French doors.  She is considering adding benches.  It will be centered on the French doors. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TYO APPROVE 05-081 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Carol Whitt, 139 West Maple Street - Addition

 The applicant wishes a 16'x22' addition to the rear of the house next to the carport with a deck on top with French doors leading out.
 Mr. Mitchell asked about the carport and was told there are 3 posts on the carport and the last post will be used in the wall for the addition.  They will use the foundation of the carport.  There is an existing door in the basement and the addition will be brought out from that door.
 Mr. Burriss asked whether the roof deck and trellis we approved earlier is above this and was told by Linda Cole Yes, and the railing on second-floor roof deck will be consistent with the post that was there. They are not adding any trellises.
 Mr. Burriss asked about window details, and Ms. Cole provided information on double-hung windows on first floor, second floor and French door.  No other windows will be added.  There is a mixture of windows on the house now; most are 8 over 8 but these are 12 over 12
 Mr. Burriss asked about the concrete block and, since it's a steep lot, asked how much will be used.  Ms. Cole said they will stay in the upper lot.  There is a small drop-off before you get to the big drop-off.  The wall will come out 34' from where the carport is and there will be 3'4 of exposure.  They will match the block as closely as they can.  The top will be a rubber roof with soffits.  They will probably add a deck.  Stained glass art work will be added.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-082 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) PROPOSED RAILING WILL MATCH EXISTING ROOF RAILING DETAIL; (2) THERE WILL BE AN APPROPRIATE OVERHANG DETAIL TO CORRESPOND WITH EXISTING OVERHANG DETAIL ON THE STRUCTURE; (3) FOUNDATION BLOCK WILL MATCH AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE THE EXISTING BLOCK; (4) HEIGHT OF CARPORT POSTS WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING HORIZONTAL LINE ESTABLISHED BY THE HEIGHT OF THE CARPORT; (5) TRIM DETAIL AROUND FRENCH DOOR WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DETAIL ON THE HOUSE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Buttondown investments, 226 East Broadway - sign

 When Mr. Burriss necessarily recused himself from his application, there was no quorum; therefore, the application had to be tabled.  Good-natured ribbing naturally occurred, but Mr. Strayer agreed to give Jack Burriss temporary approval to hang his temporary sign.
 
Maija Bamford, 212 East Elm Street - Fence

  With expansion of the library, the applicants want a taller fence to screen it.  She is not here tonight, but it fell within the code.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-084 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dick Van Meter, 136 South Main Street - sign

 For the new tenant, the applicant is requesting an 18"x48" sign which will hang on a metal bracket.  It will match the sign on the other side.  The sign now is 22½ x 1½ free standing.  Even though bigger, this one would fit in the criteria.  The applicant is not here tonight.
 Mr. Burriss noted that we try to keep signs of a consistent width, and this one could be condensed.  A sign of 48" is too wide and would not fit others in the neighborhood scale wise.     

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-0895 WITH THE CONDITION THAT IF ACCEPTABLE TO APPLICANT, IT IS NO LONGER THAN 32" WIDE AND IF THAT IS ACCEPTABLE, THEN THE VILLAGE PLANNER IS AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE IT.  ALL OTHER DETAILS ARE AS SUBMITTED, AND THE POST WILL BE IN THE SAME LOCATION ON SOUTH MAIN AS THE EXISTING SIGN.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Business:  AROD changes. 

Two major changes are being considered for the AROD:  (1) extending boundaries and (2) clarifying the definition of "massing," or looking at a building in relation to its neighbors instead of the district as a whole.  Mr. Strayer said this creates more work for us because of the wider district to consider.  Things in process do not count, only applications that come in after it goes into effect.  This is subject to interpretation, and it is meant to be a little open-ended.  Mr. Burriss thinks it is a good additional tool. 
 Mr. Mitchell asked what is the logic for stopping the district where proposed, and Mr. Strayer said you have to have a significant architectural style in the neighborhood before you can include it inn architectural review.  West Maple did not feel to have enough consistency in styles to be included. 
Ms. O'Keefe noted that neighbors have to be notified when a big addition is proposed, and this would give them a say in the project. 
Structural Demolition will be put in a separate chapter.  This would give us power to grant demolition permits.  If we need to tear down houses, at least we have the ability to look at what future plans are suggested for the area before we approve demolition permits. 
New Zoning Fees are proposed.

Finding of Fact:  MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,C,D,E, AND G UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF JUNE 8, 2005.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:  June 27 and July 11 (Mr. Burriss will be absent)
Adjournment:   8:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 5/23/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 23, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle (Chair), Tym Tyler, Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, and Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: none 
Visitors Present:  Please see attached list of 42 names.
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of May 9, 2005:  MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street - Site Improvements
Application was tabled at applicant's request.

Village of Granville - Front Doors
Application was tabled at applicant's request.

New Business:

Sharon Sellito, 224 South Prospect Street - Fence
 At our last meeting we approved a similar application for a fence 2' from the neighbor's property.  GPC approved it but later Ms. Sellito asked for it to be on the side and rear lot lines because this would preclude trees being cut down.  Having a 2' gap would attract undesirable matter.   She also is asking for a 48" picket fence rather than a 72" fence. 
 Barbara Franks, neighbor and wife of Dan Rogers, said she and Ms. Sellito have talked and come to a decision that should be better if instead of running the fence along the back line, she would tie in to the existing fence. Mr. Rogers will repair the hole in the fence, and he will extend the fence down to the property line.  Ms. Sellito will not have a fence along the back yard.  Ms. Sellito said she will do the sides and tie it in with the Rogers fence, so it would have to go to the lot line. If a need arises for a fence along the rear lot line, Ms. Sellito will come back to GPC.  Ms. Franks said there is a 72" fence along the back property line.
 Ms. Franks was concerned about the fact that with both fences abutting each other, painting the inside would be difficult.  Joe Hickman had told Ms. Sellito that in order to maintain the fence, it must be taken down. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-068 AS PRESENTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Borough Company, 233 South Mulberry - Modification

 Originally approved as windows, the modified plan specifies a chimney and fireplace, since the applicant feels the view of a solid wall is undesirable.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-069 FOR MODIFICATION.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Golf Course Company, Onnen Court

 This application continues the road into the cul-de-sac and includes 5 new lots. The engineer has filed his report, and was concerned about water and sewer and the need for sidewalks, but these things can be worked out.  The Fire Department has concerns with the design and size of the center island in the cul-de-sac and would like to prevent parking in the cul-de-sac. 
 Ms. O'Keefe wanted to know more about the parking restrictions and was told visitors could park in driveways.  She asked why couldn't the road be configured to allow parking and fire trucks.  Mr. Mitchell thought there should be ample room for cars and fire trucks the way it is.  You don't want to see such a wide expanse of concrete in a subdivision.  Also, parked cars have a traffic-calming effect. 
 Bob Kent introduced Jeff Carr, Engineer, who said if they have to do away with the island they can do so.  (Mr. Burriss wants the island left in.) This is a 27' cul-de-sac, wider than other cul-de-sacs and exceeding fire department standards.  Mr. Strayer said our Fire Department has their own standards.  Mr. Carr said they can decrease the center island and allow parking on one side only and still get the width the fire department demands.  Mr. Carr said they can work with the engineer on this.
 GPC members would like to see a copy of the Fire Department standards.
  Mr. Strayer said there is a sidewalk extension on the east which can be continued.  Bob Kent said when the plat was laid out there were no sidewalks in the circle because there were only 5 houses there.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-070 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) WORKING OUT SAFETY STANDARDS WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; (2) SIZE OF THE ISLAND; (3) APPROVAL OF THE 7 ITEMS FROM BYRD AND BULL'S LIST CAN BE WORKED OUT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  

Fairfax Homes, 931 Newark-Granville Road - Preliminary Plat

 {Mr. Burriss recused himself from this application.}
 A preliminary plat for Tall Pines Subdivision was presented before a group of about 40 concerned citizens.  The traffic study has not been approved by the Village Traffic Engineer, and the Fire Department has concerns over the number and location of hydrants.  The Village Engineer has not submitted his recommendations.  Developer Harold Lieberman wishes to build 17 home sites on 11.4 acres. The road would be private with two 10' lanes and detention basin in the middle of the cul-de-sac with 50' radius.  Water and sewer lines would be extended to the property. Ms. O'Keefe didn't see how the traffic report could be of any help to us if incomplete.  Apparently there were some errors. The Law Director said the Traffic Engineer said it was basically satisfactory but if other information is needed, he should get it.  He will go on record as saying he is satisfied with the conclusion. 
 Mr. Strayer said the Fire Department would like to see more hydrants.  They were also concerned about the detention pond in the road.  They need 20' minimum and these are 12' lanes.  Byrd and Bull is a civil engineer, not a traffic engineer.
 Ms. O'Keefe wondered whose judgment are we to take.   The Law Director said GPC does not approve preliminary plats unless all information is there and traffic does not increase to the detriment of the community.  GPC makes this decision. 
 Alan Voris, Traffic Engineer, said they prepared an abbreviated study.  They did a turn-lane analysis but did not provide a report.  They are going to hire a third party consultant to do an imperial study.  They have not seen a report from the Fire Department, but they will address all their concerns.  He would ask for conditional approval based on all these questions.

 The Chairman opened the discussion to the floor, limiting comments to 5 minutes.

 Att. Steve Mershon spoke on behalf of 5 people and said this plan does not comply with Village Codes. 
 Virginia Abbott felt a fire truck could not get in there.  She would like to know more about the original covenants, especially where it said the lots were not to be subdivided.
 Father Enke said Section 1 of the Plat Book provides that no more than one house shall be on any lot.  These rights run with the land.  Restrictions shall only be made with the consent of the residents.  No more than one house can be built on any lot without our consent.   We will not consent to lift restrictions on the unbuilt lots.
 The Village Planner said restrictive covenants were not approved by the village as part of the original plans, so this would be a civil case between the residents.  The Village did not approve covenants along with the subdivision.  It needs to be approved by the people before it can be sent to the county.
 The law director said that is correct.  There would be conditions we would require. Nothing in our code approves subdivisions of lots subject to deed restrictions.  You cannot plat over a plat; you have to go through Common Pleas Court.  The burden is upon the developer.  There is a vacation chapter. 
 Ms. O'Keefe said this agreement was made in good faith, and there are deed restrictions in contracts.  The developer is asking to break this.
 The Law Director said we do not interpret deed restrictions as a village and GPC.  This is between the parties involved.  GPC can turn this down or table it because we need to determine whether they are in fact required to go through a plat vacation.  We need to determine whether those laws apply to us as a municipality and whether the deed restrictions are something we need to look at.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked whether a municipality can negate a private contract by its action, and the Law Director said as a general rule, No, because they can't abrogate contracts.  The contract is not binding on GPC.  We are not enforcing the contract and are more concerned about private rights.  If this meets our code, we can approve it.
 Mr. Mitchell thought they may need to go through a different procedure for vacating the existing document.   The Law Director said if we approve it, we would have two plats on record.  We can table this and let the Law Department look at it.
 Mr. Riffle thought that since there is a lot of confusion, we can't really apply this.
 Mr. Mitchell said we can table this and go on record saying this is how we should proceed.
 Mr. Gorry, Law Director, said the legal issue is that the statute has a procedure for vacating a plat.  Our policy has always been that a plat on top of a plat invites problems.
 Cathy Evans's driveway is right across the street and she wants to see this denied.
 Mr. Tyler thought we could approve or table the application and can base our decision on what the code allows us to do.  He is firmly against it.
 David Goldblatt said Newark-Granville is already a bumper to bumper bypass and that is incompatible with the bike path.  A lot of walkers and bikers use the sidewalk. The Village should take a larger view of things not just this particular situation.
 Maureen Severson lives east of this site and the noise problems and tree removals concern her.  Her house would be devalued by this project.
 Kathleen D. is concerned with safety for her children and the difficulty now of making left turns.  This project is not acceptable to her.
 Susan Lithauser wondered when Newark-Granville went from a beautiful residential street to a bypass?  The traffic gets busier and busier, and she wondered what precedent are we setting. 
 Steve Tunicliff thought Newark-Granville was turning into a freeway instead of a residential street.  Properties are becoming devalued.
 Dena McKinley is concerned that several neighbors provided the covenants to the village over a week ago and she would have thought these things would have been looked at before this.  The ½-acre lots are inconsistent.  School enrollment will increase by another classroom.  We are fighting this on the outskirts of the village, but we should not have to fight it within the village.  Traffic got worse after River Road closed.  There are drainage issues.  Water flows down to Howard Dellard's home.  If they grade the land away, he will get the runoff.  Tall pine trees will be removed.  This subdivision has been laid out with the specific intent to circumvent the original plan. 
 Regina Cenevera agrees.  She lives directly in front of Howard Dellard, and when she bought her home, she was told about the covenants and that only 3 extra homes could be built down there.  They don't want to lose the natural beauty and set a precedent. 
 Jim Siegel, from Tree and Landscape Committee, has not had an opportunity to look at the plat and does not know how much weight this would carry, but the committee needs an opportunity to look at it soon.
 Bruce Kramer thought it would be irresponsible to tell a person they can buy a house and be safe, but streets are not wide enough to accommodate a fire truck.  To have told people they would only build three houses is irresponsible.  The increased traffic would bring safety issues.
 Brian Barkett lives on Denison Drive and when they bought, they were not told there would be possibly 17 more homes built.  The traffic is not difficult but left-turn lanes can be hard.  Lots of people walk on Denison Drive to get to the bike path. He feels the quality of life will be destroyed in this town with this development.  All over the county we see profits of capitalism at the expense of social values.
 Barbara Franks brought up the lot coverage and wondered how they can get 17 houses on three lots and not exceed lot coverage.  Granville is a small town and the people who live in it run it.  People here tonight do not want the development, only the ones who are developing it do. 
 Tim Hughes was concerned about the private road, which does not have to meet village standards.  A few years down the road it will need to be resurfaced and sewer issues will arise.  They will want the village to take the road over, and he does not want the burden.  He thinks the property should be kept as is.  Two or three can be built on the lots, and that would be plenty.  Schools would be impacted-34 kids, 34 cars.  He questioned the timing of the traffic study. Regarding the restrictive covenants (dedication of protective covenants), these do not hold weight in the village, but they are protective to the property owner.
 Being in real estate, Tim Hughes looks at protective covenants and shows them to purchasers.  Now he is glad he is not the realtor who sold Father Enke's house to him and told him there would be three houses and all of a sudden there are 17 proposed houses.   This is not fair.
 Dina McKinley, neighbor, is opposed to the plat.
 Ann Gillie, from Newark-Granville Road, agrees with everyone.  They purchased the house because of the location and the beauty of the area.  They redid the house and are concerned about property values in the neighborhood.
 Craig Henry said the spirit of the authors of the covenants has been violated. This embraces what Granville was trying to establish in acquisition of the property.  The traffic has increased.  Those who reside in Granville should weigh more heavily than the desires of one developer. 
 James Adam Conway's property abuts the applicant's property. He has about 8 acres and is concerned about the property values and the increase in numbers of children, safety, and traffic issues.
 Scott Emery thanked all of the GPC members.  This is a code issue for you but when it does come to a vote he hopes it will be denied.
 Ron Davis, from Bryn Du feels the restrictive covenants are there and should be adhered to.
 Steve Mershon, Att., said it's not GPC's job to sue the developer.  He wants to put out of their mind that if something is minimally compliant, they have to pass it.  But this development plat does not comply with your code.  They got by by saying it's a private lane, not a street.  But a street includes both, and when they took the plat they said it had to be 90' width.  But the code calls for 90' on a city street.  In five years they will come back asking for a city street. ~ The developer is trying to put in streets that do not meet your requirements for not less than 60' in right of way.  This one is only 50' if you say that the 8' gravel drive is required in the ROW.  The developer can go for a variance but they have not. ~ Road width 26' with parking is required in the code.  They propose 10' width and no parking, so the fire department cannot get in. ~ The developer wants to avoid putting in sidewalks and street lighting and planting tree lawns.  It's cheaper if you don't have to put in sidewalks, and the cost is borne by the public.  It's not right to transfer development rights from the developer to the public.  Nothing in your code says that private roads should be developed to cover standards from city streets and private roads. ~Your driveway has to be 300' from a public intersection, but this is 160' from Denison Drive.  Ninety feet frontage is required on a public ROW. ~ They are supposed to disclose common areas and design the plan to preserve natural vegetative areas, but they are cutting down the tall pines.  This is not consistent with public welfare (1113.03). ~ The traffic study timing was not accurate, and they said there was no construction going on, but that is not true. ~ Access management requires minimum location between driveways, and this is not followed (1117.02). ~   It is not GPC's obligation to enforce covenants but what is fair to the property owner.  By denying this application you are not harming the developer.  Mr. Mershon would ask that GPC either deny the application or ask the developer to withdraw it rather than just table it.
Mr. Riffle closed the session to public comments.

Mr. Riffle had a few comments:  He questioned the price of the $500,000 houses; ~ he wants to preserve the tall pines; ~ this is on a state route and the only other developable property is to the east; ~ we will accommodate the fire department; ~ the road is a county road but not private; ~ his idea is not to segregate the community ~ he would like to talk with everybody and not make enemies.
Mr. Riffle does not feel comfortable with all the traffic information provided and not knowing how legally we stand on this. 
 The Law Director requested tabling.  These restrictions are covenants and we assumed this plat after it was recorded in the township.  So now we have a bit more complicated situation.  This is a private road.  The plat does not accept dedication of the road.  He needs to read the covenants and see what is in there.  It does say there should be one house per lot.  The village assumed the covenants.  That complicates the situation because it was his understanding the plat did not.
 Mr. Mitchell said if we assume the covenants into the village ordinances, doesn't that restrict us from approving the plat?
 Mr. Gorry said it may not.  He has to read these and determine what they say.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said if there are GPC members who think there are enough other issues tonight to vote, is Mr. Gorry suggesting we do not do that?  Yes, he wants to study the covenants some more.  If this plan violates subdivision regulations, you cannot approve it.
 Mr. Mitchell thought the issue of private vs. public road was significant, and he has not heard the developer suggest he would be willing to make it a public road.
 Ms. O'Keefe said will these people be informed with enough time to come to another meeting?    Mr. Gorry said if you want public notices for your next meeting; tell the village what you want us to say.  Mr. Wilkenfeld would like everyone on the list notified and all the names on the petition that was delivered tonight.   This will be in the Public Notices in the Sentinel, in the Library, and outside the village office.  Assuming this will be on the agenda June 13, there is no need for mailed notices.  Given the absence of one member on the 13th, the developer asked for a hearing on June 27.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION UNTIL JUNE 27.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mecham and Apel, South Cherry Valley Road - New building

For a multi-use single-story building next to Bob Evans, the applicant is seeking a 12,000 sq.ft. retail area.  The engineer was unable to submit a report on the existing plat.  The traffic engineer called Mr. Strayer and was unable to submit his report, but he indicated this application was not thorough and complete and did not include the current traffic volume nor the entire area and intersection.  The traffic study was not in accordance with village guidelines.  Mr. Strayer said we do want to meet with the developer and discuss a new traffic study.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said we discussed the LCAT report and the report to Village Council at the April meeting.  The other thing he would like to see is views of the property more than just the aerial view.  There are significant trees out there.
Mr. Strayer indicated LCAT said: (1) the first is a permanent fix to the intersection, a compact diamond similar to Route 37 intersection.  The state has neither funded the study nor construction.  It should be completed by 2025 or before; (2) another project as a temporary fix is a way to make a study with a no-build scenario, no left turns, and continuous flow intersection.  Then they will move forward.  This is temporary until financing can be found.  This intersection is below ODOT acceptable standards.  Traffic is increasing rapidly even now.
Mr. Riffle asked about lot coverage and was told by Mr. Strayer it is 47.5% and the requirement is 40%.  We are granting a density bonus up to 5% but we would still need a variance or find a way to reduce that.
After Mr. Mitchell asked if they were going for a variance, Mike Hughes said they would try to find a way to reduce it to 5%.  To make this work better and increase maneuverability, a variance probably would have to be granted.
Mr. Riffle said we still need a variance and traffic study, and Mr. Wilkenfeld still has concerns about the vegetation.
Mr. Hughes showed the trees to be removed.  They will keep trees on the south end and will take down trees along Rt. 16.  On the east there will be a retention pond so trees will remain.
Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested having more signs and more trees and Mr. Tyler wants fewer signs and keep in just a few trees. 
Mr. Burris said in our work session he had strong feelings of a three-dimensional relationship, that it be not a flat plane but have some gables, but he does not see any on the plat.   The other comment is that we had a discussion that somehow have a pedestrian connection with Bob Evans so people could walk there.  We would want sidewalks included.  Mr. Hughes thinks this is a great idea.  Mr. Burriss also had concerns about dump trucks being able to serve the dumpster, and Mr. Hughes said they pushed it back as far to the east as possible.  Mr. Hughes said they can either back out or go out this way {showed on the plan}. 
Mr. Hughes said they don't have all the details on trash and lighting put together yet.  They will try to match Bob Evans's lights.  Mr. Burriss would like more Granville style lights even though they do not necessarily match those of Bob Evans.  Your building is articulated in detail, and we would like to see a consistency, the detail of lighting is one of those things that we either tie in with the building or not and we would prefer that it do so.  We want to upgrade the lighting and give it more connection.  He asked whether the dumpster would have a drain for the hose and was told it will slope into a drain.
Mike Hughes shared other details:  It will have a flat roof for air conditioning units. ~ Wiring will be underground. ~Gas meter is on the east. ~Gas meter will be screened. ~ Sidewalks will be 10'. They were not proposing to sprinkle the building. ~Signage planning is not complete. ~ Tenants go all the way through the building. ~ Spandrell glass. ~ No trucks allowed in the rear. ~Landscaping will tie in and complement the building.
Mr. Tyler said the more trees along the Bob Evans border the better and to help buffer neighbors, Mr. Riffle wants to see a wall plan, a three-dimensional plan, and a lighting plan.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION 05-073 PENDING TRAFFIC REPORT AND ENGINEER'S REPORT.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B, AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF MAY 23, 2005.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Closing Comments by the Law Director:  We are required to enforce our code.  If something is not in the code, we cannot deal with it.  We can't look at deed restrictions.
 On the other hand, if a deed restriction is incorporated into a plat, then the condition that you put on a plat that restricts becomes part of our code.  So we look at the plat and it says "deed restrictions are incorporated into the plat" and we must enforce them.
 The courts have told us we have to try to control applause. This is a public hearing not a hearing based on the opinions of the audience.  The reason is that you are not allowed to rely on public opinion to make a decision.  You rely on testimony of witnesses who say things relevant to what we are considering.  So, say, "We have got a big schedule, so please hold your applause."
 Mr. Gorry is going to determine to what extent are the deed restrictions part of our code.  Is it a public or a private street?  Our code does not regulate private streets.  If it's a public road, we have more control. 

Next Meetings:  June 13 (Mr. Tyler will be absent) and June 27
Adjournment:   10:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 5/9/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 9, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle (Chair), Tym Tyler
Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Carl Wilkenfeld
Visitors Present:   Sharon Sellito, Ida Evans, Joseph, Katie R.R. Bell, Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Richard Salvage, Steve and Marilyn Keeler, Ray and Katy Paumier, B. Llanos, Barbara Hammond, Greg Ream
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none

Minutes of April 25, 2005.   Mr. Mitchell had provided several changes to Mr. Strayer:  Page 2, Line 13 "Mr. Mitchell would feel better if the name of the existing business were on the sign."   6th line under Reiner, delete "offset a little bit but on the same plane."    Page 3, under Lieberman, "Garage doors face the side."  MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Sharon Sellito, 224 S. Prospect Street - Fence

 The applicant wishes to erect a 72" dog-eared wooden hand-built fence for privacy around the rear of her yard.  The material will be treated lumber from Lowe's, with 8' between posts and no caps.  She hopes to leave it unfinished.   The finished side will be facing outward.  She showed the group exactly where the fence would be located and said it will not be visible at 40' from the street.
 Barbara Franks, from next door, said they built an expensive fence and made it exactly as to specifications.   The fence is painted and will need periodic repainting, but if another fence is right up next to it, they cannot service their fence.  She had offered Ms. Sellito to share her fence.
 Mr. Strayer said a fence can be right on the property line but out of the right of way or 1' behind a sidewalk. 
 Dan Rogers, next door, does not want to see Ms. Sellito's fence sticking up above his fence and does not want to see trash and leaves accumulate between the two fences.  There is insufficient room under his fence to rake leaves.  He said he will seal up the fence where a tree damaged it. Ms. Sellito said she asked him in vain to set it back farther.  The reason she wants the fence is because of continuing conflicts between the two families. She said she will not allow Mr. Rogers to step on her property to paint the back of his fence.  Mr. Burriss asked whether there would be a gate, and the two parties felt no contact would ever occur.

 Mr. Tyler would only approve this with a 2' separation between the fences.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-057 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE FENCE BE 2' FROM THE ROGERS' FENCE POST.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Newkirk Spa at the Inn, 116 N. Pearl Street - Sign

 The applicant wishes to add a 2 sq.ft. brown vinyl window sign in the front window facing Pearl Street.  We formerly approved a hanging sign.  This will be in the upper sash of the window

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-059 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Taylor Drug Store, 200 East Broadway - Drive-Through Window
The applicant wishes to add a drop-in window for prescriptions and two 8"x36" steel and concrete posts for protection of the window from cars. Greg Ream noted the four parking spaces will be removed.  The Village Engineer has approved the project.  The trim will match existing trim color, and the existing lighting will be adequate.  He showed where the downspouts will be located.
Mr. Strayer asked whether the painting strips would be removed and was told Yes.  He suggested painting the bollards green but Mr. Ream said they were supposed to match the color of others in the area. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE UPPER TRIM ABOVE THE DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW {you will work with your contractor to create a backboard to make it look good) WILL MATCH THE EXISTING TRIM.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

M109, 113 North Prospect Street - Signs

For the Needling Yarn Shop, Richard Salvage explained that his daughter will move her shop across the street and explained the four signs requested (there is a rear entrance):  (1) existing projecting sign. It will be relocated to the rear of the building and mounted on the exterior wall to the left of the rear entrance; (2) existing wall sign will be relocated and mounted to the wrought iron hand rail at the steps; (3) a new projecting sign will replace the existing Pippin Hill projecting sign using the existing external lighting.  It will be mounted on the bracket currently used with Sign #1.  It will be secured to the building at the bottom to prevent wind damage and will be of the same materials and same colors as the existing signs; (4) Sandwich Board will be relocated.   

 Mr. Tyler applied the criteria for variance for the sign in the rear and found that Criterion B under 1147.03 would apply: 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.
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE FOR REAR SIGN.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE ENTIRE SIGN PACKAGE, 05-062 AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ann Hinkle, 434 East Broadway - Garage

 A representative (Steve Keeler?) presented the application.  The applicant wishes to add a board and batten garage with block foundation, split face block stained.  They will change the color of the block of the house to make it look like sandstone.  They want to add a patio to connect basement door to the garage, and this will be a separate application.  There will be downspouts, which will drain into the back yard.  There is one retaining wall at the back
 Mr. Burriss asked about windows and was told there would be a small one in the back and larger windows in the side.  They will be custom made.  The trim is 2 1/4 brick to match the trim, or 1 x 4.   The roof is dimensional shingle like on the house, and the color will match the house. 
 
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-063 AS PRESENTED.  MR.  TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.


B.Hammond Interiors, 123 East Broadway - Change of Use

 Ms. Hammond wishes to add space to her store by acquiring the storefront next door.  She is applying for a change of use from professional office to furniture store.  She said after the 4th of July she will move the front door and change the awning but abut it to the current awning.  She may add hours of operation on the other glass.  She wants to be consistent.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION O05-064 AS PRESENTED. MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Catherine Paumier, 329 North Granger Street - patio enclosure

The applicant wishes to build a hip roof over the concrete slab, either 24x26 or 20x26.  They also want to convert the gravel driveway to asphalt and add a 24x40 turnaround.  The existing concrete slab, which was originally designed for a garage, may need to be replaced with new concrete.  Ms. Paumier showed drawings of the roof and said they will do another half hip on the back.  All materials will match.  The footprint will not change.  They are hoping to use the same footers.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-065 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Finding of Fact:  MR. TYLER  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,C,E,  F,G, AND H 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 MAY 9, 2005.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:   May 23 and June 13
Adjournment:  9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 4/25/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 25, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld, Tym Tyler
Members Absent:  Jackie O'Keefe
Visitors Present:  Kevin Reiner, Evelyn Frolking, Tom Bolman, Peter & Laura Pauze, Hal Lieberman, Dena McKinney, Sharon Sellito, Lise McKehnny, Brian Barkett, Wendy Flowers
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of April 11, 2005.    MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Newkirk Spa at the Inn, 116 N. Pearl Street - Sign
{Mr. Burriss recused himself from this application}
 The application having been tabled at the last meeting, tonight we have a new design with five colors, which would require a variance.
 The applicant said white is not a color.  She added that the sign will not be vinyl, it will be hand-lettered, and the white is muted.  She promised to make the orange things red.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-033 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE ORANGE WILL BE THE SAME COLOR AS THE POMEGRANATE.  MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Constance Barsky, 221 East Elm - Site Improvements
Mr. Strayer said they wish to replace the driveway strips and repair the concrete.   They will add landscaping.  The applicant is not here, and Mr. Tyler would rather have the applicant here to answer questions.  Mr. Wilkenfeld said they want to take out the parking space and continue the strip on the back to the back door.  They will remove the existing walk and create a new one with a pad for the barbecue.  Downspout water will be directed under the concrete.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-044 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Peter Pauze, 323 N. Grangter Street - Fence

The applicant wishes to build a 6' wooden privacy fence along side and rear lot lines it with a 10' car gate.
Mr. Pauze said it will be treated for weather but not painted.  He showed a picture of the preferred design plan.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT PRESSURE TREATED LUMBER IS USED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Fire Department, 133 N. Prospect Street - Door

 Tom Bolman from the Fire Department explained the door style with transom and the fact that the present door is in bad condition.  The back door will be the same but without the transom. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-046 FOR TWO DOORS: (1) FRONT DOOR PAINTED WHITE WITH RED INSIDE AND (2) BACK DOOR IS ALL RED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Debra Hannahs, 120 East Broadway - sign

 Ms. Hannahs, the owner of the building, wishes to permit Evelyn Frolking to advertise her Artiflora business, which will be located in front of Home Pleasures.  The sidewalk sign will be 12 sq.ft. of white pvc with a changeable space and an angled iron frame.  Ms. Frolking said the shop will be open only during suitable months on Fridays and Saturdays. The second color is screened so there are two shades of brown on one side. 
 GPC members told her it is too large.  She said she wanted a metal frame in plastic and this was the only size the sign company could get. 
 Mr. Mitchell would feel better if the name of the existing business were on the sign.  He does not see any reason for such a big sign.
 Mr. Strayer said we can look at this as a temporary sign since it is only up 4-5 months a year.  We can grant a permit for this but next year she will have to come back for a permanent sign.
 Mr. Riffle is concerned about setting a precedent.
 Ms. Frolking said she could go to another sign-maker.  She would not like a temporary sign because she might want to open on other days of the week. 
 Mr. Burriss suggested specifying that it be of regulation size.
 
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-048 WITH CONDITION THAT IT FALL WITHIN THE ORDINANCE REGULATION OF 8 SQ. FT.  MR.  WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Kevin Reiner, 540 W. Broadway - Remodeling

The applicant showed photos of how the remodeling will look.  He wants to (1) add a second story over the existing kitchen; (2) add an 18x25' greenhouse of the rear of the kitchen; (3) add 4 dormers where existing second story windows are located.  He wants to bump out the kitchen a little bit.  The house is 17.'5" from the property line.
Mr. Mitchell asked about the plane of the roof and was told it will be two separate parallel roofs with the same slope.
Mr. Burriss wanted to hear about the fenestration patterns, and Mr. Reiner explained them in detail. 
Mr. Reiner wanted more light and detail and wanted it all to look correct.  He does not know whether he will use the shutters but saved them all.  Cedar siding will be on the addition.  The west side will be flush with the original part of the house. 
Mr. Burriss' thought is to approve on condition that we see final plans, although the renderings are beautiful.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT SOME OF US SIGN OFF ON WORKING DRAWINGS. AN ADDITIONAL 5' WILL BE ADDED TO THE KITCHEN PLANS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Jack Burriss, 226 East Broadway - Change of use
{Mr. Burriss recused himself from this application.}
 Following some good-natured bantering, Mr. Strayer explained that Mr. Burriss wishes to change the beauty salon to his furniture store, Cherry Tradition.   It would be a less intensive use so the parking would not be an issue. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-051 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

120 West Broadway - Signage

 Mr. Burriss asked how far the sign would be off the ground and was told 24" by John Barkett.  There will be no landscaping. He said he wanted to make sure everything was OK since our last work session.  They are going to remove the gingerbread.  GPC agreed that it would be acceptable.

Hal Lieberman, Tall Pines

 The applicant wishes to build a development behind the Catholic Church and he brought in a sketch plan tonight.  He said the dedicated private road is gravel but will be concrete or asphalt.  The community will not be gated. Units are 20,000 sq.ft. Village Council will review all aspects of this project, including the number of school children to be added to town.  He wants to put in no sidewalks to encourage a "lane feel."  Mr. Mitchell wants to see sidewalks and wants to be sure fire department has opportunity to comment on design.  Garage doors face the side.  There is a stand of woods before the golf course.
 Mr. Mitchell recommended changing the lot lines to follow the slope of the hill and angle the lot lines to follow contours.   
 Other things to consider are:  proper drainage, curbs and gutters, culverts, no open ditches.
 This will eventually go to the water department, the fire department, and the engineer.
 
Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS A,B,C,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 APRIL 21, 2005.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:  May 9 and May 23
Adjournment:  9:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 4/11/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 11, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Tim Riffle (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld, Tym Tyler
Members Absent: 
Visitors Present:  Beth Moss, Mildred Moss, Deb Hibler, Kevin Reiner, Deborah Jewel, Brian Barkett, Keith Myers, Fred Abraham, Tim Ryan, Gloria Hoover, Joanne Morey, Dennis Kuchon, Sharon Sellito. Martha Keyes
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of March 28, 2005.   Change to "MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED."

 MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Karl Moss, 331 North Pearl Street - Fence

 The application was tabled at the last meeting pending more information.  Tonight we have the site plan of the fences and some pictures.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 After a short discussion about the location, 
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-031 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Newkirk Spa, 116 North Pearl Street - Projecting Sign

{Mr. Burriss recused himself from this application.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.   
The woman representing the applicant showed a picture and explained the sign in greater detail than was shown in the application. "Newkirk Spa" is in navy, with green background and logo and a splash of red.  The two-sided hanging sign will be placed on the corner next to the building.
She wants six colors, but only three are allowed.   Mr. Strayer said we have granted variances for more than three colors, but not six.  She promised to try to get it down to three colors.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE 05-033 PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE SIGN.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Mary Lee Van Meter, 122 N. Pearl Street - Rezoning

 The application is a resubmission from a previously withdrawn application to change zoning from VRD to VBD.  In zoning cases, the Village Traffic Engineer must make his recommendation regarding traffic for residential vs. commercial.  Rezoning recommendations go to Village Council from GPC.

 Tim Ryan explained that he wants to have his private office in the building.  He has had an office in Granville for 15 years and wants his own building.  He has no people coming to his office; he has large business clients out of town.  He handles no residential real estate. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld wondered how we can guarantee that people will not park in the neighbor's driveway next door, and Mr. Ryan does not know why they would.   Mr. Strayer said parking is not an issue in rezoning, so if V.C. grants approval, an applicant still has to come here for change of use, and parking will be looked at then.  Instead, we look for traffic flow and access.
 Ms. O'Keefe said once it is rezoned to business, what's to stop a more objectionable business if Mr. Ryan leaves? 
 Fred Ashbaugh repeated the issues he raised on January 24, such as parking. People park in his driveway now and turn around there.  A scale map should have been provided and a map of adjacent properties.  He does not want to see more commercial establishments.  Also, the highway was not notified about a rezoning.  There was discussion about whether this was necessary,
Mr. Tyler said ODOT does not get involved in local zoning.  Mr. Wilkenfeld thought this was a matter for the Law Director to consider.  Mr. Strayer said once Shawn Hillman's letter (from ODOT) arrived, that ended our involvement and terminates our obligation.  Mr. Hillman's letter indicated that ODOT does not get involved with rezoning of local properties, as most of their land interests are public rights of way.  Therefore, they neither support nor object to any requested rezoning.  Mr. Tyler said ODOT does not get involved in local zoning. 
Also, the Master Plan called for spaces that primarily serve the local community.  Mr. Ryan does not deal with business in Granville.  Mr. Ashbaugh provided a petition against the rezoning. 
 Martha Keyes lives across the street and said people are in their driveway all the time from across the street, and this has been going on for a long time.
 The woman from Newkirk said if you keep making our commercial property smaller and smaller, you will stifle the village.  Mr. Ryan will own the property and fix it up and make it look better.  You can't put something in there that requires a lot of space, so you don't have to be concerned about the future.  Any businessman would recommend Tim Ryan vs. what's there now. 
 Deb Hibler said some of those places which now have more than adequate parking started out this way.  How easy is it to rezone the neighbor's property?  Will we just keep extending all the way down Pearl Street?  Pearl is already too busy.  There are other business properties available now.  It will set a precedent.
 Dennis Kuchon noted that in a residential neighborhood there is a critical sense of people.  A lot of the area is dead.  You are pushing businesses up Pearl Street.  Residential homes along Broadway are homes rather than businesses and it's a big decision before you.  Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that this creates a domino effect.
 Sharon Sillito stated that a few years ago we were concerned about keeping business properties in the areas where they were.  The smarter thing to do is to concentrate them where they are.  It's a big mistake to eliminate residential homes.
 Joanne Morey did not want to see any more residential building converted to business use. We have enough traffic and parking problems without adding to them.
 Keith Myers said what you are making is not a decision on Tim Ryan's business; you are making a decision on land use.  It's not a matter of Tim running a good business there or whether his specific use is appropriate but the problem is the change of use forever.  He sees a lot of deterioration of neighborhoods.  At one end we have continuation of commercial and at the other is a bank who wants to tear down a house for a parking lot. This neighborhood is extremely concerned about this and will not take it lightly.  Think about forty years from now.
 Tim Ryan said he has lived in Granville twenty years and his wife teaches in the school system. He is renting space and wanted to look at this property because it abuts a business property.  It has been a rental for about ten years.  He has a quiet business with a partner.  Parking is not an issue, but the lot can be redesigned for 3-4 cars.  The Traffic Engineer has reported on trips generated by residential use vs. commercial use.  Mr. Ryan does not want anything negative to happen in the future and can understand the tax concerns and will pay taxes.  He thinks his use is a better use than as a rental home.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO VILLAGE COUNCIL.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND THE MOTION WAS DENIED (Mr. Burriss and Mr. Riffle voted Aye. The others voted Nay.)

Fred Abraham, 400 South Main Street - Sign

 The applicant wishes to erect a 90 sq.ft. one-sided joint freestanding business sign, which will require two variances-for multiple tenants and size.  There are other multiple tenant signs in the area larger than 24 sq.ft.  Fred Abraham said this would be the same size as the IGA sign.  The changeable sign would be wood with  northshore stone overlay on post.  It would be taupe and the aluminum sign is red with white vinyl lettering. 
 Mr. Mitchell asked why such a big sign is requested and Mr. Abraham said some people can't find the businesses in the area.  The Thrift Shop doesn't really have a sign.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether each tenant would be allowed 24 sq.ft. and the answer was No.  Mr. Burriss said the architectural posts needs to be included, and we encouraged something with more character for the IGA and Certified.  Without the posts, Mr. Strayer said this would be 60 sq.ft.  Mr. Tyler noted that the IGA is a multiple-tenant sign, but Certified is a single business sign.  Mr. Burriss noted GPC cut down on the number of signs Certified requested. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld applied the application to the criteria for variances:

A.  That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.  The circumstances refer to the multiple-tenancy of the area.  The IGA already has a multiple-tenant sign.
 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.  It would deprive applicant of rights enjoyed by others.
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.  It would not.
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.  Granting the variance would not affect others.

 Mr. Riffle wants the sign to match other signs in the area.  Mr. Strayer said IGA was allowed 64 sq.ft. in 2000 after variances were approved.

 Mr. Abraham said he can move the sign up to conserve space and get rid of the blank space.  Mr. Burriss wants him to move it up 4" and remove 10"at the bottom.  The sign would have no landscaping and no lighting. 

 MR. WUILKENFELD MOVED THAT WE APPROVE VARIANCES BOTH FOR THE SIZE AND NUMBER OF TENANTS FOR THE SIGN BASED ON THE CODE, B, C, D, AND E.  APPROVAL IS FOR A SIGN UP TO 60 SQ.FT AND UP TO SIX TENANTS.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR. MITCHELL VOTED NAY). 

 MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-039 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN SHALL BE MOVED UP 10"; (2) THE MULTIPLE TENANT SIGN TO HAVE A 4" BORDER AT OUTSIDE EDGE CONSISTENT ON ALL THREE SIDES.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR. MITCHELL VOTED NAY)

Granville Milling Company, 400 S. Main Street - Temporary Sign

 The Mill wishes to announce the opening of its expanded store with a temporary sidewalk sign saying "Country Store now open."  Phil Watts said they need to let people know the east door is now open.  They would want the sign up for six months and would take it inside each evening.  It would be right in front of their new sign on their side of the sidewalk
 
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-040 WITH TIME LIMIT OF SIX MONTHS.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Sessions:
Kevin Reiner, 540 W. Broadway - Remodeling

 Mr. Reiner said they are adding onto the kitchen and wish to add new windows and use the trim that is there now. Additional space with pediments would be added above windows.  Two windows would be added on the east and two on the west.  One window had been removed, and they want to reinstall it. 
Mr. Burriss asked for details about the porch, and Mr. Reiner said he is researching columns and railings.  Materials will be lap cedar siding and standing seam metal roof. There is an old greenhouse of redwood with foundation of standing stone below the glass, 18' wide and 25' long. It is smaller than the width of the kitchen.
 Mr. Burriss said we will need a site plan with complete details.

John Barkett, 120 W. Broadway - Sign
 For a psychology office, the applicant wishes to add a sign tag to the existing hanging sign for the area that was once the Thrift Shop, and showed a picture.  The psychologist will enhance academic performance for students.  The sign will be black on white with some green trim.
 Mr. Burriss recommended a border on the frame and to keep it no wider than the others.  He would like to see consistency in the border with the other one. 
 The entrance is to the left of the French doors, and Mr. Barkett wants an awning over the door.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS A,B, AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF APRIL 7, 2005.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Strayer will write up the finding for the rezoning application denial.

JEDD
 Mr. Strayer said the Planning and Zoning Committee wanted GPC's opinion on this revised document before they went further on it.    The properties under consideration are Owens Corning, Hitt, and the field across from Kendal.  Mr. Wilkenfeld wants to see a map showing these locations.  He wants to protect residential neighbors, and any areas visible from major roads should be implemented.  He wanted the document to be more specific.  Mr. Strayer said conservation setback minimum is 300' from Rt. 16.
 Ms. O'Keefe said this will require a change in zoning.  The JEDD make-up will be 2 from Village Council, 2 from Township Trustees, and 1 more.
 Mr. Riffle wanted to be sure all parties work together to bring in businesses we want. 
 Mr. Strayer said there will be a referendum to see whether people want it.  The Trustees will go to a general election but probably not the Village.
 Mr. Burriss asked whether we need to go through the entire document and Mr. Wilkenfeld thought we should talk to the parties directly involved.  Mr. Strayer said this will need to be prepared by the August 25 deadline for a referendum. GPC is administrator of the codes and you are to be sure it is workable and the language is consistent with the village and township.

Next Meeting:   April 25 7 p.m. to discuss JEDD
Adjournment:  9:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger