GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 1995
Members Present: Dorothy Garrett, Larry Huey, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury
Also Present: Doug Tailford, Jr. Village Planner
Visitors Present: Andrai Nagy and Jim Gimeson, Ed Vance (Sensibilities)
Minutes: October 2: should be 2-3- rather than
20-30-. Delete "Mrs. Pyle will check on this." Paragraph 3,
line 3, delete "was told" and substitute Mr. Huev argued. Line
8, same paragraph, change to The Commission continues to reject
CSD as a gossibilitv because a new owner milht consider...Next
paragraph, it was moved that the building be moved back 100 and
the drive and parking 80'. Vote was 4 aye and 1 abstention.
Under Granville Milling, 6th line up, add some after "But."
Page 3, paragraph 3, change to "the group remembered. .
Paragraph 4, vote was 4 to 1.
Page 5, add adjacent before "residents." Mr. Huey moved to
approve minutes as corrected, Mr. Salvage seconded, AND MINUTES
WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: Ed Vance encouraged GPC to not allow or
recommend things that are not in conformance with village codes.
He said that he understood Village Council to have determined
SuperAmerica to be an allowable use, and he asked GPC to take a
close look at the application because a lot of citizens do not
think this should be allowable there.
David Longaberger, 537 Jones Road -Application change
Mr. Nagy brought to the group a revised 6- fence plan for
the polo field as a compromise to the previous plan. This fence
is lower than the former one but still needs to be 6' tall to
keep the horses in and to maintain balance with the rest of the
property. They also wanted to grant space for the bikepath to
the village. He showed the group a sample of fencing, which
would have spikes 9" apart and have a low wattage lamp on stone
piers. He thought a 4- wood fence would look inappropriate for
the property and be dangerous for bikers.
Mr. Stansbury asked whether Mr. Longaberger is considering
this type fence around the entire property, and the answer was
positive. Mr. Stansbury did not think a 4' wood fence would look
inappropriate; rather, a wrought iron fence around a field for
horses would look inappropriate. Ms. Garrett cautioned GPC about
precedent-setting with a wrought iron fence. Mr. Huey stated
that under 1448 a 42 fence is maximum. In the ordinance fences
Mr. Huey said they are not enclosing horses. ,
8c,a/nnot have spikes or sharp points, so these spikes are not possible
because we cannot vary a prohibited use. Mr. Tailford
reminded the group that there are spike fences in the village,
9*4 -7 (/ 4 /1L,A.», 9-&
f b*fob/etcwiTeMens. 9R"osbpeirktseosn, tbhuotugMhr.t Nthaagty da. i_sca_hgsrlededcoaunldd gsaeidth-9ls"- whoeulrddsbt-eeck
more visually attractive than 4".Mr. Stansbury thought that
even though the chainlink is unattractive, a spike fence would
look like a prison.
Mr. Salvage stated that three of the four criteria for considering
applications would seem unsuitable for the fence in
addition to the question of appearance. Mr. Myers stated that
there is a polo field in Gahanna with a wooden fence 4- high.
Members agreed that the proposed fence would only be appropriate
surrounding the house for security reasons, not around the polo
MR. HUEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AND MR. STANSBURY
SECONDED. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION
for the following reasons: 1) the fence with lights is too
high; (2) it is unsafe for horses and riders with the spikes and
unsafe for children who might get stuck in-between the spikes;
3) it is not compatible with surrounding area, nor is it appropriate
for a field of horses; and (4) spike fences are not allowed
in the village. The group would approve of the proposed
fencing just around the house.
Sensibilities, 118 S. Main -Sign
Mr. Vance would like a tan and white unlit ground sign on
the Main Street side of the building in the right of way. It' s a
two-sided, 8 sq. ft. sign on a wooden post with a birdhouse on top
of the sign. The sign conforms with all regulations. MR. HUEY
MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
Adjournment: 8: 15 p. m.
Next Meetings: November 6 and November 20