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

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

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

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

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

Members Present:  Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tym Tyler, Tim Riffle (Chair), Jackie O'Keefe
 Members Absent: Tom Mitchell, Carl Wilkenfeld
Visitors Present:  Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers,  Sharon Sellitto, Kevin Reiner, David Robbins, Barbara Burdett, Mildred Moss, R. Adams, Dan Dobbelaer, Bernadita Llanos, Leon Habegger, Marc Brockman, Richard Cherry, Amit Kumar Siani, Frank Bernini
 Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of August 22:  MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS DISTRIBUTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Dan Rogers - 210 East  Maple Street - Spa

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

Mr. Strayer said the applicant has submitted a new site plan.  Also, there are letters from the neighbors in our packets.  Considering the strong objections of the neighbors, Mr. Strayer recommends that "Only through agreement of all the property owners should this be approved."
 Mr. Riffle noted that the BZBA has approved the lot coverage for 56% but with recommendation that more fencing or covering be added for privacy. 
 Ms. Franks reported that the spa would have a cover on it.  It would be impossible to completely buffer the yard from the second story of neighboring houses.  On being asked what kind of bushes or flowers she would plant, she noted that one corner plant that was cut down is coming back and will block one neighbor's view. They don't want to plant evergreens. She does not know what kind of flowers will be grown in the planters, but "it will be lovely." 
 Ms. O'Keefe asked why they did not site the spa closer to the house and Ms. Franks said they were told it was too close to the property line.  Mr. Rogers added that they were told the fence would have to be right up to the house to adhere to property lines, so they took it out.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked what the purpose of the spa is, and Ms. Franks said it is an in-the-ground spa and it will make us feel better.  It is for their own personal use. 
 Mr. Burriss asked whether it will be brick pavers or grass, and Ms. Franks said originally they wanted a patio but the lot coverage was too much and they reduced it to 14 sq.ft, which ousted the patio.  It is a spa with tile trim around it. 
 One of Mr. Burriss' concerns is that even though the applicants have done a beautiful job on restoring the house and porch, he is not seeing any screening from the street.  Ms. Franks said they will put up a wrought iron fence along the second layer of stone.  From the street you will see picnic tables.  Mr. Burriss then asked how they will transition from the picket fence to the wrought iron fence, and extensive discussion took place about the fences.    Mr. Strayer said a fence is required;  even with a lock-in spa cover for safety, the code requires a fence, either around the entire property or just around the spa. Without a fence, they would have to go to BZBA for a variance.  Ms. Franks thought with a lock-in cover they would not need a fence, and a fence with gate would be a detriment for the children playing in the yard having to open the gate frequently. 
 Discussion ensued about other pools or spas in the same zoning area, and Bernardita Llanos, neighbor, asked what is the distance from the pool to the lot line.  It is 10' instead of 12'; the code requires 10'. 
 Ms. Llanos' two concerns were privacy and safety.  She said the applicants keep the fence door open most of the time.  With a spa, more people would be attracted to the yard.
 Sharon Sellitto, neighbor, said a spa does not fit with the architecture in the AROD.  The plantings should be evergreens for year-round buffering.  More discussion took place on tree removal and drainage.
 Mr. Cherry thought it was funny that the people who are going to be looking into the others' yard are the ones concerned about privacy.  "If you don't want to see, don't look."   Nothing can block everything out.
 Mr. Tyler suggested tabling this until we get a good look at the fence and where it would be sited and what will work for everybody.  Without a fence it would have to go to BZBA.  He said that in order to protect the applicant as well as the village, any plans must be in detail.  Ms. Franks said they will not put in the spa until the fence is up.  Ms. O'Keefe said that based on the history of that property, she would like to see a detailed plan.  But Ms. Franks said she did not know what else GPC wanted.  She could bring in an estimate of what the wrought iron fence would look like.   Mr. Burriss would like to see a sample of the fence and posts and exact location of fencing. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION 05-061 PENDING RECEIPT OF FENCE DESIGN AND DETAILED SITE PLAN.  MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

AAATH, Inc., 109 N. Prospect St. - site work
 The applicant wishes to (1) replace the deteriorating steps with three 13" steps, with the top layer consisting of a solid brick-width layer of white Indiana Limestone; (2) replace existing front door with a similar one and replace side panes with leaded and beveled glass; (3) the banister will be replaced when the rest of the work is done.
 Russ Adams said rain falls off the awning onto the bricks.  They will bring the two planters together.  He said they should weather and get darker and look natural.
 Mr. Riffle asked whether he has checked the code requirements for railing and step size, and Mr. Adams said the contractor told him the ratio would be 7/13.
 Mr. Burriss wondered whether there should be handrails on both sides, and this needs to be determined. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-129 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT CHECK WITH LICKING COU TY CODE DEPARTMENT TO SEE WHETHER  AN ADDITIONAL HANDRAIL IS NEEDED TO BRING IT UP TO CODE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

First Baptist Church, 115 West Broadway - sign
 Mr. Strayer said the church wants a 12 sq.ft. freestanding sign in front of the Education Building to identify the Cooperative Daycare space.  Dan Dabbelaer said It would have wood rather than aluminum posts and would be on two posts (instead of the one listed in the application. There will be a flowerbed at its base.
 Mr. Burriss would like them to consider more decorative posts.  The church is one of our architectural jewels and we have to think about this on Broadway.  We are trying to establish consistency in signage. They might take a look at other signs in town.  The proposed sign is generic and not much in keeping with some of the things we have tried to encourage. He suggested adding a border and matching fonts with other signage at the church.  Add some detail and the applicant was willing to do so. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-131 WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS:  (1) THAT THE STYLE BE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING FONT STYLE THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY; (2) ADD BORDER; (3) ADD ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL TO POSTS; (4) SUBMIT FINAL DRAWING TO VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Kristin Darfus, 130 N. Prospect Street - sign
 Mr. Strayer said there are two signs requested for the new Indian restaurant, Masala Casa and Smoothie Shop, one in front and one on the side.  The overall signage for the building is OK.  The hours of operation will be added to the door. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-132 FOR SIGNAGE.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

David Robbins, 324 West Elm Street - garage addition
 Mr. Robbins said the garage will be a 12'x9" pole barn style with five holes for posts. The magnolia tree would not have to be removed. The overhead door will be 2' above the door of the house.  There are hydrangeas and hostas, which they will move to the new exterior.   They will match trim and scroll detail.  Driveway would change from gravel to concrete. 
 Mr. Burriss was concerned with the overall street landscape; most homes have separate garages behind the houses. He feels that the 2' setback is not enough to maintain integrity of the house.  Mr. Robbins thought the garage in the plan balanced the tower on the other side. In his letter he said, "We have tried to prepare a building plan that enhances the street façade of our home and is stylistically compatible with other existing structures, while providing us with an integrated modern garage addition to suit our needs."  Mr. Burriss was concerned about setting a precedent here. An attached garage is a suburban detail. 
 Mr. Tyler asked whether the garage could be set back a little bit, and Mr. Robbins thought they could go back 4' from the front of the house but would need a variance.  But Mrs. Robbins said if they go back, they would no longer have a window for the den.  She added that the entire back yard is occupied.  
 Mr. Robbins said attaching the garage to the house is not set in stone.  They are not planning an entry from the house.  Along the west side there is an old stone wall. 
 Mr. Burriss was concerned about the scale of the front elevation, and Mr. Robbins said it is 12/4 pitch on roof and a 9' high wall.  He said they need room for two cars.
 Mr. Riffle wants it 2' farther back. 
 Mr. Burriss said the house has a vertical emphasis and he is concerned about adding a garage door at the front view of the house.  He likes the architectural detail and would expect it if the garage moves back.   He said it's a difficult house to not ruin the proportion and scale of. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-135 WITH THE PROVISION THAT (1) THE SETBACK WILL BE 4' FROM FRONT PLANE OF THE HOUSE AND (2) GARAGE DOORS MEET WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820- Newark-Granville Road - relocation of playground
 Mr. Strayer said the church wants to move the playground from the west side to the south side.  It will be the same style.
 Leon Habegger sand they will move it to the back of the new Sunshine School addition, and explained exactly where it will be located.  It will be fenced in.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-138 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Frank Bernini, 338 West Elm Street l- site work
 Because of the tight turnaround for driveway and the one-way road on South Plum, the applicant is requesting driveway expansion with landscaping.  They would have room for more parking, but would need to remove the sidewalk in front.  They will take down the hedge and railroad tiles.  The tree will stay.  They want a 3' wide exposed aggregate wall and grass.  Steps will be added for the 3 ½' slope, and plantings will be added.   
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-139 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Kevin Reiner, 540 West Broadway - Modification
 The plan is to change the plans from a greenhouse to a standard addition for a family room.  They would use the same foundation, same siding and detailing.  The greenhouse was to be 25'x18' and the modification would be 22'x19'
 
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-140 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Brian Craig, 226 East Maple
 Mr. Craig said we talked about this before.  On the east elevation they want to put a bay on second floor.  Its 7', existing.  The bay would go 2' over.
 Consensus had no problems with the plans.

Finding of Fact:  MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A THROUGH G UNDER OLD BUSINESS,  AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2005.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  9:17 p.m.

Next Meetings:   September 26 (Mr. Tyler will be absent) and October 10

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Members Present :), Tom Mitchell, Tym Tyler, Tim Riffle (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld, Lyn Robertson (for Village Council)
 Members Absent:  Jack Burriss (Vice Chair)
 Visitors Present:  Gloria Hoover, Bill Heim, Bill Ryan, Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Mark Gearhart, Mark Compton, Sharon Sellitto, Sarah Wallace, Stewart Dyke, Paul Thompson, Fred Ashbaugh, John Cassell,  Ray Paprocki, Robert C. King, Lisa McKivergin, Lauren Pearson, Julio Valenzuela, JoAnn Morey, Bernie Dew, Deborah Jardine, Art Chonko, Kevin Reiner, Seth Patton
 Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Citizens Comments:  none

Minutes of August 8:  MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS DISTRIBUTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of July 11: MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS DISTRIBUTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Old Business:
First Federal Savings, 209 East College St. Fence

{Mr. Riffle recused himself from consideration of this application and Mr. Wilkenfeld led the meeting.}
 The applicant wishes to (1) erect a black aluminum fence along the rear property line and to (2) enclose the dumpster with vinyl fencing and gate.  The color will match overhang of the Darfus building.
 John Compton, V.P. from First Federal, said the reason for the request is an agreement that First Federal had with Unizan to remove a tree along the southern property line which was growing over the First Federal in exchange for a fence as barrier.  Jim Siegel had granted permission to remove the tree. (2) They also wanted a barrier around the dumpster with a gate.
 Gloria Hoover movingly presented the concerns of the neighbors on College Street when and if the house First Federal owns is torn down for a parking lot. This is a neighborhood community village vs. a corporation.  The alley was a fire alley with access to neighborhood garages, and Chuck Kinsey bulldozed the garage.  The Village declared the alley legally vacated.   The proposed fence would close access through the alleyway.  Mrs. Hoover is adamant against having a parking lot next door.  She feels that people can easily park near the bank on the street. 
 Debby Jardine said the neighborhood is a wonderful ambiance of trees and she is strongly opposed to a fence
 There was a question as to who owns the alleyway and if it was legally vacated. Mr. Wilkenfeld would like the Law Director to research the matter and bring us an answer.  Mr. Mitchell thought that since a question exists, we need to review the past history of the area.  Mr. Strayer said the application is for the property line behind the white house.
 Mr. Compton said the easement is not affected by the record.  They are only talking about the southern line and whether or not there are other easements would have no bearing on their fence. He noted there are other fences along there and theirs is more "see-through" and ornamental.
  Mr. Strayer said it would be at the very edge of the easement and would not restrict traffic.
 Mark Gearhart, from Unizan, said they wanted the fence because the area was in bad shape.  People park on their lot and go to the other buildings, and they are trying to protect their parking spaces.
 Even though Lisa McKivergin is for preservation, she said this spot cannot be maintained with dignity and the next best thing is to go ahead and do what needs to be done.
 Deborah Jardin asked whether the intent for the fence is to keep cars out.
 Mr. Mitchell thought that since there are objections and since there is a question on the easement, more research should be done. 
Mr. Strayer says the tax maps do not show an easement along there.  He would have to get the map from the county, but it does not seem to be an easement there.  It seems to have been vacated.  An easement would not restrict any movement through the area.  People can walk parallel to the fence. 
Mr. Tyler said there are two private property owners who want the fence  and desire not going any farther onto anyone  else's property.   He reminded the group that First Federal has agreed to put in a fence to appease Unizan's wish to keep people off Unizan's property if they have no business with the bank.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said it's a nice fence and they are doing it in good faith, but if there are issues not being addressed, he wants that as a condition.
 John Cassell has two lots there and has heard nothing about maintenance of the fence, the fence on the rear line of his property was installed by the neighbor and it is being torn down and he has done nothing about it.  That would happen to this fence as well.  {He was told First Federal would maintain it.}

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE VILLAGE PLANNER CONSULT WITH THE VILLAGE ATTORNEY AND DETERMINE FOR CERTAIN THAT THERE IS NO PUBLIC ACCESS BEING AFFECTED BY THIS FENCE. MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Dan Rogers - 210 East Maple Street - Patio

 Mr. Strayer said we have a revised version, and we have letters from some neighbors opposed (Sharon Sellitto and Bernarditto Llanos) to the plans.  BZBA did approve a variance for 56% lot coverage, which was reduced from 67%.  They strongly recommended that some kind of screening or privacy be included in the application.  The fence is not included in this application.  Jack Burris told Mr. Strayer he was concerned about the viewshed from the roadway, 
 Barbara Franks explained that the reduction in lot coverage came about because originally there was going to be a patio but now it's just a spa.  The planter boxes will match the driveway. The spa is in the back of the property.  Someone suggested a wrought iron fence, but she does not think that is necessary.  Since they have extended the fence forward, this would tie into it.  When asked whether it would be visible to the neighbors, she said it's a 6' fence and it would be visible from the second story.  Water next door drains onto their property.
 Mr. Strayer said they still need to meet with the Service Director to be sure water does not drain onto this property.
 Ms. Franks repeated some of the difficulties she has had with the neighbors over water drainage and other issues.
 Mr. Riffle noted that we have no information on the spa. And Mr. Wilkenfeld is concerned about objections from neighbors.
 Sharon Sellitto read from 1161.02 about stylistically preserving the structures (a spa does not); contributing to the historical character (a spa does not); contributing to the continuing vitality (it makes neighboring lots harder to rent or buy).  She requests this vista be eliminated.  She recommends building the spa in the Rogers ample garage.
 Ms. Franks said you couldn't see anything until Ms. Sellitto cut down the trees (including hers).
 Mr. Riffle brought the discussion back to the application.
 Lisa McKivergin, who owns lots near there, thinks there is a way to make everything work.  There's merit to what Sharon Sellitto says, and to have a spa or hottub with proper screening might work.  Wrought iron does not screen.  She would have no objection to their having a spa.
Mr. Tyler asked in the AROD where are there other hottubs and pools?  He was told there are at least two pools (enclosed). 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld noted we have no drawings or pictures of how it will look.
 Mr. Tyler said there should be a way for neighbors to sort this out, but what will happen is that eventually there will be issues coming up later if we approve it as it is now.  He wants to know how the Rogers will prevent neighbors' complaints, and Barbara Franks said it has to be visible from the second floor next door. 
 Mr. Riffle said (1) we don't really have an accurate representation of how this would go together; (2) information is missing that would help us make decisions; (3) we don't know what the planter looks like; (4) we need to talk about privacy issues from the perspective of the neighbors; and (5) we don't know anything about the spa and whether it is permanent.
 Mr. Franks said it is a permanent structure and below ground.  She will take pictures of their driveway.  It's a 10x10 spa with a 2' patio around it.    She wants to look at other spas in town.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld stated that we approve what goes into the ground and we have to be specific:  what materials?  How far from the property line, etc.?

MR. TYLER MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION PENDING RECEIPT OF MORE DETAILS ON THE SPA.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Julio Valenzuela - Remodeling

 The applicant wishes to remove the siding, scrape, prime, and repaint the exterior and he will replace any damage uncovered.  He will also restore the roof, which will be slate colored asphalt; maybe the porch roof will be copper.  They will take out the rear steps and return the house to a single family dwelling.  They will strip the paint off the columns.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-123.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Lisa McKivergin, 224 East College Street -Remodeling
 Mr. Strayer said that after extensive repair, they wish to turn the five-apartment building into four condos.  He talked to the Law Director and found it a nonconforming use now.  It will still be nonconforming, and the property will have a property association though the condos will be owned by the owners. 
 Ms. McKivergin said the carriage house will be of board and batten and will harmonize with the house.  There will be new windows more in proportion to the front of the house.  They started ripping off the siding to see what they had and it will need lots of patching but it's in pretty good shape.    There will be three condos in front and one in back.
 Mr. Mitchell asked about the 6 over 6 windows, and discussion ensued about all the different types of windows.  Mr. Riffle thought the 6 over 6 gives it a character that makes that part of the house stand out.    Ms. McKivergin said there is a variety but they will harmonize.  The trim will match, and the siding will match too. 
 Mr. Riffle would like to see the most effort put into the central area.  With the roof renovation, try to make the renovation as close to the original as possible with the other pieces added on.  As long as the central part is historically accurate, it's not as important for the ells.  Do 6 over 6 in the center and let the3 other pieces do what they want to do.  Let it all be honest.
Mr. Riffle added that we can approve with the condition that the applicant bring us a drawing of what it will look like.  The 6' fence will be OK. 
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-127 WITH THE PROVISIONS THAT (1) WE WILL HAVE A REVISED DRAWING OF THE WINDOWS ON THE FRONT AND THEY WILL BE REVIEWED BY MR. STRAYER, MR. TYLER, AND MR. BURRISS; (2) APPROVAL OF FENCE DESIGN AS PRESENTED TO US TONIGHT WITH THE PROVISION THAT MR. STRAYER WILL APPROVE THE PLANS.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Unizan Bank, 222 East Broadway - Drive Through 
 Bill Ryan, contractor, said the reason for the new drive-through is to keep up with new technology.  The new ATM is larger and requires a larger enclosure.  There will be no modification of the concrete, and the color will be Unizan blue.  It is back-lit and the lights point to the building.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-133 FOR NEW ATM WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE COLOR OF THE NEW ATM WILL BE OF UNIZAN BLUE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Kevin Reiner, 540 W. Broadway - Modification
 After having received approval for a greenhouse, Mr. Reiner wants to change from a greenhouse to an addition to the house for a family room and dining area on the back of the house.    The footprint will become a little smaller. 
Consensus of the group liked the plan
Denison University - Renovation
 Art Chonko introduced Jack Potter, architect, who provided plans for the conceptual, but doable, renovation as a gateway to campus.  There will be a potential studio above the power plant.  There will be a public gallery and improved access uphill. There's potential for pedestrian mall on College Street as a central gathering place with the street closed off from cars between Mulberry and Plum for most of the year.  They will put in an elevator. The copper finish exterior will turn green.  Outdoor area will have space for music and performance. Room for ceramics and kiln is planned.  The new additions are separated by glass ceiling and walls, which will create a different look at night for artists and will show like a beacon.  They will make a new entrance.  They will need to do fund-raising.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld liked the plans, and Mr. Mitchell recommends they consult with the Fire Department about access.  Mr. Potter wants to make it safe with access from this road and this driveway.
Finding of Fact:  MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS A,B,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 AUGUST 22, 2005.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:  9:44 p.m.
Next Meetings:  September 12 and September 26
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Members Present: Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tom Mitchell, Tym Tyler
Members Absent:  Tim Riffle (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld
Visitors Present:  John Cassell, Robin Lantz, Marta Contini, Jerry Martin, Sharon Sellito, Pam Powell, Rodger Kessler                       Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of July 11: Postponed until next meeting.
New Business:
Marlina Hammond Keynes, 537 Jones Road - sign
 For an art display by Paul Hamilton at the Bryn Du October 23-November 5, the applicant is seeking signage for 4 identical one-sided 5x8 signs at (1) Main and Broadway, (2) Granville Inn, (3 and 4) two signs at Bryn Du. The Village Manager recommended that there be no sign at The Granville Inn. GPC preferred only one sign at Bryn Du.
 The color plan was discussed and it was decided to limit it to two colors with darker color as background and white lettering.  All lettering must be consistent in fonts.  Rodger Kessler agreed that this can be accomplished.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-119 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT: (1) BACKGROUND COLOR BE BLUE AND THE LETTERING BE YELLOW AS SHOWN ON BACKGROUND ON APPLICATION; (2) ALL FONTS ARE TO BE CONSISTENT; (3) THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND KEITH MYERS WILL WORK WITH THE DESIGNER TO COME UP WITH A SUITABLE DESIGN; (4) THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE SIGN AT BRYN DU; AND (5) THERE WILL BE NO SIGN AT THE GRANVILLE INN.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Brews, 116 East Broadway - Awning
 Jerry Martin is applying for a one-color awning over the staircase to protect the stairs from snow and ice. He will apply for signage later.
 Mr. Burriss asked whether the material in the awning is dense enough to prohibit light from bleeding through, and Mr. Martin thought that would be the case.   
 GPC would like the Village Planner and Jack Burris to have a look at the final details of the awning.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-112 WITH THE CONDITION THAT FINAL DESIGN FOR AWNING AND ANY CHANGES TO THE STAIRCASE WILL BE REVIEWED BY MR. BURRISS AND THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Thrift Shop, 454 S. Main Street - sign

 The applicants wish a temporary 8 sq.ft. sidewalk sign announcing the hours of operation.  It will be displayed only when shop is open and for special events.
 Marta Contini said it will be only displayed late August to the end of June and will be located between the sidewalk and the wall.
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE FOR A TEMPORARY SIGN.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

HER Realtors, 130 N. Prospect St. - Change of Use

 Pamela Power stated it will not be an office manned with employees; all their agents work from home and they just need a place where they can pick up materials.  The change of use would be from retail to office space.
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-117 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
HER Realtors, 130 N. Prospect St. - wall sign 

 The realty company is requesting a sign for the above business.  There is a projecting sign in existence for their former location, and the proposal is to tack it onto the wall with their name and new address. 
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-117 FOR WALL SIGN AS SUBMITTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
HER Realtors, 130 N Prospect St, - Sidewalk sign
 The above applicants also wish a sidewalk sign with the same information, to be placed between the Pizza Shop and the curb. It would be up about 3-4 hours a day and on Saturday. 
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-118 FOR SIDEWALK SIGN AS SUBMITTED.  MR MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
First Federal Savings, 209 East College St. - fence
The applicant has requested tabling application.
MR. TYLER MOVED TO TABLE 05-120 FOR A FENCE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Schools - Freestanding Signs
The application is for 2 signs:  (1) at the high school driveway and (2) at the Middle School driveway.  (Institutional District does not have any sign requirements.) 
Mr. Kessler said they will not light them.  They will use reflective vinyl for lettering.  Mr. Strayer wants the two signs to be of consistent design.
 Mr. Tyler wants another sign saying "Granville Intermediate School ½ miles" added to the high school sign. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-121 FOR FREE-STANDING SIGNS WITH THE OPTION OF ADDING SIGNAGE INFORMATION FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A,B,C,D,E,F, 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 AUGUST 8, 2005.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:  7:30 p.m.
Next Meetings:  August 22 (Mr. Burriss will be absent) and September 12
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Members Present:   Tim Riffle (Chair), Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Carl Wilkenfeld 
Members Absent Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tym Tyler
Visitors Present: Mildred Moss, Andre Ozolins
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of June 13:  Page 1, under Shapiro, change MR. RIFFLE SECONDED TO MR. MITCHELL SECONDED 
June 27:  Page 2, line 10, change MR. TYLER MITCHELL TO MR. TYLER.
Under B.Hammond, change MR. RIFFLE SECONDED TO MR. TYLER SECONDED.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE JUNE 13 AND JUNE 27 MINUTES.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

As a follow-up to the Minutes, Mr. Strayer agreed to let the Catholic Church sign stand, inasmuch as the sign was a donation, but it can only stay up for one year.

New Business:

William Lavender, Westgate Drive - temporary sign

 Tina Lavender's real estate sign for Keller Williams will replace the Shai Development sign but smaller than the previous one.  For temporary signs, GPC makes their own requirements.  It will be 70' from the road.  (It's in TCOC, not AROD as on the Staff Report.)
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-101 AS SUBMITTED. MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Richard Van Meter, 110 East Elm Street - Signs

 The applicant wishes several signs for the new businesses upstairs:  (1) post sign on wall; (2) post sign on Elm; (3) wall sign; (4) 3 tag signs upstairs.  We have approved several of these wall and tag signs before.  They will have two colors and fit within the code.
 
MR. MITCHEL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-105.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Andre Ozolins, 115 North Prospect - awning

 For the new business at this location, the applicant wishes to change the color of the existing awning to tan.  It will be tan linen with red lettering and trim.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-107 FOR AN AWNING CHANGE AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Andre Ozolins, 115 North Prospect - signs

 The same applicant wishes to erect a projecting sign and a canopy sign on the awning.  They can only have one other color besides red, and members determined that white is not a color. Though this item is still under discussion.  Both signs meet the code.  They will be tan with red lettering and trim.  The color (PMS 199) is more red than orange.   

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,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 JULY 11, 2005.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:    July 25 meeting is cancelled.
 Following meeting: August 8
Adjournment:   7:18 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Members Present:   Tim Riffle (Chair), Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Tym Tyler, Carl Wilkenfeld 
Members Absent Jack Burriss (Vice Chair)
Visitors Present: Brian Miller, Scott Brown, Mildred Moss, Mike Frazier, Barbara Hammond, Jim Cooper, Greg Ream, Susan Kramer
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of June 13:  Postponed until next meeting. 
Old Business:

Buttondown Investments, 226 East Broadway - sign

 At the last meeting the application was postponed for lack of a quorum.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE, MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 Rather than the "Automatic Denial" under consideration for awhile, the members discussed the criteria for temporary signs; and as GPC has discretion to approve them, the overlarge sign was approved but only until Mr. Burriss gets his permanent hanging sign. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-083 FOR A TEMPORARY SIGN.  MR. WIKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

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:

Innocent Wodzisz, 136 East Broadway -Change of Use
 
 The applicant wishes a change of use from an office to an art studio with retail capacity.  It's above the bank building and is a permitted use.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-090 AS PRESENTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 The application states "change of use from professional office to retail use," but it is really for an art studio.  Mr. Strayer said the studio will have low traffic.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-090 AS A CHANGE OF USE TO AN ART STUDIO.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Taylor Drug Store, 200 East Broadway - Modification

 Greg Ream wishes a different style for his drive-up window. This one would have a sliding glass window to conserve space.  There will be a pair of bollards. 
MR. MITCHEL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-095 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE BOLLARDS BE INSTALLED AS PER THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

St. Edwards Catholic Church, 785 Newark-Granville Road - Temporary Sign

 The church wishes a sidewalk sign advertising their Preschool. It is similar to sidewalk signs we have approved in the past.  Members discussed the color scheme of the board, which seems to have 5 colors.  The sign would be up for a maximum of a year; then they would have to reapply. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted them to modify and reduce the number of the colors.  The others agreed. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-095 FOR A TEMPORARY SIGN WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT THEY REDUCE THE COLORS TO THREE.  THE VILLAGE PLANNER WILL HAVE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE COLORS THAT ARE MORE EARTH-TONE RELATED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Scott Brown, 1229 South Cherry Valley Road - Sign

 The applicant wishes to erect an 18 sq.ft. free-standing sign for his Red Vette Printing business in a building which used to be a residential home.
Mr. Brown said it is to be "OSU red" with vinyl letters and white wood posts.

MR. TYLER  MOVED TYO APPROVE 05-096 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ellen Cooper, 334 West Maple Street - Fence

 The applicant wishes to extend the fence already in place on two sides of her property to totally enclose the yard.  The addition will match the existing white picket fence all around with same color and materials.

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

B. Hammond Interiors, 123 East Broadway - Awning

 Ms. Hammond wishes to extend her store into the Coldwell Banker office next door.  It will have a separate awning, with "Babs' Closet" on the drop.  It will be the same style as her other black one.  It will look like a continuous awning and will cover up the A.C. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 
 
Granville Public Library, 212 East Elm Street - Addition

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

 Mike Frazier, President of the Library Board, introduced Jack Hedge from the Design Group.  Mr. Hedge's comments are summarized here:  it will be built out about 2' from the Library ~ with  a sloping shingle roof resembling slate ~ mechanicals on roof ~ a hollowed-out area for the children's section ~ they will put brick up the building to add depth ~ it will look like a series of little buildings along the alley ~they will remove the existing entrance and keep the arch window and bring it out ~ replace it with an aluminum clad window ~ canopy will be kept but they will put a balustrade around it above the entrance ~ they will not open up the front door ~there will be low bushes at the entrance ~ add sandstone on the south ~ add a recessed area with grass for the sunken garden in the children's area ~ an overhang will screen the summer sun ~ they will take the red stained glass windows and move them downstairs; it's a secure area with railing around the top  ~ there will be a walk with pavers  ~ self check-out ~ grand stairway ~ a grille will separate the meeting room from the library so it can be secured and stay open longer ~ add another section with plants and benches as per the garden club ~ they will take out tube lights and add lights similar to the ones in this room ~ entrance will have different colored pavers ~ landscaping and ornamental trees ~ service sidewalk in the rear. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked how long the library would be closed, and Mr. Frazier said there will be some inconvenience and dust, but they want to keep it open. It will be done in phases.  The addition will be built without disturbing the existing library, then they will move the library into the new section so they can work on the old library.  They hope to open the bids in the fall and get the foundation in by December.  Demolition of the Pyle House will start next week.  They have talked to the fire department.  Mr. Hedge showed a sample of the sandstone.  There will be some stucco and trim will be white. 
 Mr. Strayer wants to be sure the Tree and Landscape Committee has a look at the landscaping.   There will be two parking spaces provided. 
 Mr. Riffle felt the window styles were out of rhythm on the first floor east façade.  Mr. Hedge said there will not be windows on the stairs so as not to emphasize the depth. Members discussed discrepancy of window sizes, and Mr. Hedge said to make windows alike is to sacrifice shelf space.  Mr. Frazier said they tried to balance inside function with outside beauty. 
 Susan Kramer, from the Board, said they are going to be concerned about maximizing function of the inside of the library, and shelf space is critical. Mr. Frazier said they would lose space for 430 books if they make windows bigger.  Mr. Riffle suggested adding spandrel glass, giving the appearance of a window but allowing space inside. 
 GPC members were concerned about the 5 windows across the bottom east side.

MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPROVE 05-097 WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL WINDOWS ON THE EAST ELEVATION WILL LOOK THE SAME SIZE AS IN WINDOW NO. A.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS A THROUGH 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 27, 2005.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:   July 11 (Mr. Tyler will be absent) and July 25
Adjournment:   8:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger