Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes 12/16/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 16, 1996

Members Present: Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Richard Salvage, Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury

Members Absent: Maxine Montgomery

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden, Betty Morrison

Minutes of November 18, 1996:

David Neel

Page 2, end of second paragraph, change to "this would be

automatically required."

Page 4, halfway down, change "She already has a permit from"

to She said she has talked with .

Page 5, Line 7, change to "Council not approve guidelines

without a contract." Line 19, add after "areas" because of

Denison astronomers' request to minimize lighting cast skyward.

Line 6 from bottom, change seconder to Mr. Stansbury.

Mr. Salvage moved to approve minutes as amended and Mr. Stansbury

seconded. Minutes were unanimously approved.

Citizens Comments: None

Old Business:

Bryn Du Subdivision Phase IV, Granville Golf Course Corp. -Lot Split

Mr. Reyazi stated that two 11-acre lots to be dedicated as reserve, whether to be given to the homeowners association, Granville Land Conservancy, or the village, are to be split off.

Mr. Neel stated that the owners are committed to keep this open space, and the lot split is the first step. The question

remaining is who is to maintain the area. Appropriate language will be added to the deed.

MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT AS REQUESTED. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Betty Morrison, 129 Westgate Drive -Sign

antiquMes. sMhoopr.rison wishes to convert the cabinet shop into an sandwich board. She requests a 31"x34" wall sign and a 2' x4' nances. The signs are in compliance with sign ordi- The sandwich board does not count toward the maximum sign area.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE SIGN APPLICATION. MR. SHULMAN

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Exterior Lighting Guidelines

Action on this item will be postponed until Ms. Montgomery

can be present, but meanwhile, members had several changes to the

guidelines, which Mr. Reyazi will incbrporate into the final

document. Mr. Myers thought 12' light poles were quite short.

Mr. Reyazi stated that all streets in all subdivisions will be

lit, and Mr. Myers added that the best lighting lights intersections.

The developer should put in the lights.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT FOR THE BRYN

DU LOT SPLIT AND BETTY MORRISON' S SIGNS. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8: 00 p.m.

Next Meetings: January 6 and January 27 (postponed a week because of the holiday)

GPC Minutes 11/18/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 18, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Peter Marshall for Maxine Montgomery, Lyn

Robertson, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury

Members Absent: Keith Myers, Marc Shulman

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Mary Fellabaum (310

W.Elm),Herbert &Katherine Smith (329 Summit),Alex Cavanaugh

127 W. Maple) , Joe Hickman (326 Granger) , Gwen Williams (W.

Broadway),Ron &Pat Winters (820 W. Broadway),David Neel (964

N. 21st St.)L,isa McKivergin (124 S.Main)P, hil Wince

Fackler' s),Greg Ross (536 Welsh Hills Rd)

Minutes of October 7, 1996: Mr. Stansbury moved to approve and

Mr. Salvage seconded. Minutes were unanimously approved.

Minutes of October 21: Page 4, Line 3, change "could" to would

try to."Halfway down page, line starting with Reyasi, delete

Page 6, Paragraph 2, add he believes after "Mr. Stansbury said." Halfway down page and last line, Mr. Salvage made the

motion, not Mr. Stansbury.

Mr. Salvage moved to approve. Mr. Stansbury seconded, and

minutes were unanimously approved.

Minutes of November 4: Page 3, under Landscaping Plan, Mr.

Ryzer' s first name is Fritz. Under Site Utilities, Snyder is spelled Snider. Seventh line from bottom, change "Cherry Valley to Westgate" to Newark-Granville Road to Galway.

Mr. Stansbury moved to approve minutes; Mr. Salvage

seconded, and minutes were unanimously approved.

Citizens Comments: Mr. Wince asked why Fackler' s was not on the agenda, and Mr. Reyazi said it was because of the Moratorium and because he has heard nothing further from Fackler' s.

Old Business:

Jeff Kobunsky, Lot 31 Thornwood Addition, W. Broadway

Bob Hersom, owner of the property, stated that the plans phuasveh been changed to move the house slightly to the east and to it back 40' more. They will abandon the old driveway. The

pad is 55' x55' and the house is 28' high. They plan to cut down as few trees as possible. The Tree and Landscape Committe has been consulted, and they feel that with a 90' setback, sufficient screening will be maintained to protect the green belt. They also ask that a 15' area surrounding both large trees be cordoned cooffnswtriuthctisonnoweqfeunipcme eonrt. yellow tape to prevent soil compaction by

Mr. Winters stated his preference that the house be located

as far west as possible. Mr. Salvage thought the revised plans

present a reasonable alternative and compromise.

Ms. Robertson requested replacing as many trees as are cut

down. Mr. Marshall added that it is not necessary to plant a 15'

tree; three 5' trees can be substituted. Mr. Winters would like

some of the replacement trees planted as buffer between his house

and the new one. Mr. Winters acknowledged that an owner should

be able to do what he/she wishes within confines of the ordinance.

Mr. Hersom would like to replant evergreen trees to

provide a buffer in winter.

Mr. Reyazi requested that approval be conditional upon water

and sewer approval. Others thought this would be aatemca.**

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO

FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1) ABANDONMENT OF EXISTING DRIVEWAY ON LOT

2) INCORPORATE RECOMMENDATIONS OF TREE AND LANDSCAPE

COMMITTEE

3) EVERGREEN TREES TO BE PLANTED ALONG EAST LINE UNDER

SUPERVISION OF TREE AND LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE TO ACT AS

BUFFER.

Ms. Robertson suggested adding requirement that all cut-down

trees be replaced, but Mr. Salvage disagreed. Mr. Reyazi

suggested they be replanted on another lot since the lot under

consideration has many trees already. Ms. Robertson suggested

turning the issue over to Tree &Landscape, and Mr. Marshall

suggested letting them deal with reasonable replacement. A fourth condition was added:

4) THAT THE TREE AND LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE REVIEW AND

RECOMMEND REPLACEMENT FOR THE REMOVED TREES.

MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

uThteilivtiilelasg.e will need to deal with the issue of extending

Joe Hickman, 326 N. Granger Street '

Mr. Hickman showed pictures of the existing front door and wishes tp replace it with a four-panel door with archway, brass trim, and etched glass and put the old door on the north side of the house. He would also like to replace the windows on the north side and add a 32"x36" window where a window used to be. It would be slightly different from the windows already there. MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION. MR. SALVAGE

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Alexandra R. Cavanaugh, 127 West Maple Street

4*

2

Ms. Cavanaugh stated that upon removing the rotted roof over

the porch, it looked better without the roof and railing. She

wants to put in a door with columns flat to the wall. Other

houses in the neighborhood are more sophisticated aesthetically,

of a different style, and she thinks her house would fit in

better with these changes. They want to remove 'the fishtail

siding and replace with asbestos-looking siding.

Mr. Reyazi stated that all porches in the neighborhood have

roofs, and this project is not compatible with the renovated

structures in the district. A porch with railings is a very

common feature, and this plan does not appear to conform with

criteria in the ordinance.

After more discussion and recommendations to Ms. Cavanaugh,

Mr. Stansbury suggested tabling application until a full board is

present. Ms. Robertson added that porches are neighborly and

keep people outside.

MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION. MR. SALVAGE

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Herbert Smith, 329 Summit Street

Mr. Smith wishes to to build an addition to the house for a

closet with roof and siding to match existing house. The project

will need a variance by BZBA for setbacks. Mr. Reyazi has not

spoken with the neighbor, and Mr. Smith said she is moving Members agreed it away. was architecturally acceptak

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO .APPROVE APPLICATION S 0 62F- rt-lTD '81-0 A

APPROVAL. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Gary Haga, 746 Newark Road

Mr. Haga wishes to place a lawn shed more than 100' from the road, which will need BZBA approval for setbacks. Mr. Reyazi

stated that since the shed is on property in the TCOD, it needs GPC approval, but Mr. Salvage thought the TCOD not applicable because the shed would be beyond the TCOD. He wanted to

recognize that GPC does not have review here and to just pass it along to BZBA.

Ms. Robertson suggested that the shed agree in appearance with the house and garage.

James F. Crates, 339 East Maple

Mr. Crates wishes to replace the existing worn-out fence with a similar picket fence and move it farther back from the front to within 2' of the side property line. In the rear he is

moving it within 12' of the property line.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. STANSBURY

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Trent and Claudia Meteer, 1098 Newark-Granville Road

The Meteers wish to subdivide their property, which meets

requirements in ordinances except that of an additional curbcut.

After subdivision, the Meteer' s house will be on 1. 43 acres and

the new lot, 0. 756 acres. Ms. Meteer said that they are moving

away and want to split the lot beforehand. A contract for sale

of the house is currently pending the condition of a lot split.

She did not realize she needed to come before GPC. She stated

that she has problems with Mr. Reyazi' s recommendation for a

shared driveway because it would destroy the architectural design

and their need for the drive where it is. Their driveway is the

only one in that block, and one more driveway would not generate

very much extra traffic.

Mr. Stansbury would like to table the application until a

full GPC lS available to provide input, but Ms. Meteer stressed

her anxiety that approval be granted so the sale can proceed.

Shea- ]e=ady has a pcrmit from TemFr-edericks and Doug Tailfed* :

Other GPC members were for the plan, so Mr. Stansbury agreed to approve but with reluctance in order to expedite the matter.

Mr. Salvage thought it inappropriate to ask for a shared

driveway. » 4M»oR.AKSALVJA9GEVMOVEr*D T1O AFP-PRO-VE>1A3P)P7LIC-ATION. MR. STANSBURY

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

John and Eva Montgomery, Munson Street

The Montgomerys wish to subdivide their property south of dMiuantseonlyand sell it to Lyle King, who owns the property imme- to the north. Mr. Reyazi stated that all lots resulting

from subdivision in CSD district must be contiguous to a dedi- cated public ROW. Therefore, this will be combined with Mr.

King' s lot.

MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE THE LOT SPLIT WITH THE

CONDITION THAT IT BE MADE PART OF LOT 6 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Sessions

Lighting Guidelines

Joe Hickman explained that the guidelines resulted from a study by the Street Lighting Committee. They recommend a sepa- rate requirement for commercial ahd residential lights. Mr. Hickman showed pictures of the proposed lights and described their advantages. The only place requiring new poles would be 10 poles in the downtown district. New subdivisions would be

required to adhere with the approved lights. Mr. Hickman said

AEP considers the current lights wasteful and in need of

replacement. The new lights would be more attractive and more

efficient, though more expensive initially.

Mr. Salvage asked whether Granville would have a contract

pwriitche.HoloIpfhannoet,, htheesusgogleessteudppVliilelar,getoCgouuanrcainl teneotaarpeparosvoen a-a-b0le0 --_*. I

contract with them. Mr. Hickman added that Village councif irconsidering

street light replacement, not lighting guidelines.

Mr. Marshall suggested that if people want a similar light to

Holophane' s, they could come in for a variance, but Mr. Stansbury

felt that would defeat the purpose. Mr. Salvage suggested

saying: "or approved equivalent."

Mr. Marshall said that AEP will no longer service the old

incandescent lights, and they will do the replacement work over a

period of 6 years.

Ms. Robertson suggested having just the esplanade style,

rather than have one for commercial and one for residential

areas 1 Mr. Stansbury agreed. Mr. Salvage wanted a contract that

wouldp,)rotect everyone on price with HOophayn>Le.._ _r£c,5- *+4 - Mr. Marshall will take these comments to Village Council, and Mr. Hickman will rewrite the draft.

Meeting procedures

1. Mr. Reyazi feels it important for him to introduce those agenda items which have updated material so that everyone will have the same information. He would like to refer to the

particular section in the ordinance which is relevant to the application. Members agreed with this suggestion, but Mr.

Salvage would prefer a full membership before new policies are adopted.

2. Mr.

and glasses.

Salvage would like someond to provide water pitcher

3. Mr. Reyazi thought slides would be helpful when considering applications.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THOSE ITEMS UNDER OLD BUSINESS TONIGHT AND NEW BUSINESS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CAVANAUGH APPLICATION. MR. SAG@6-*SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 49 -

Adjournment: 10: 10 p. m.

Next Meetings: December 2 and 16

GPC Minutes 11/4/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 4, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Lyn Robertson, Richard

Salvage, Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury

Members Absent: Keith Myers

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Mary Fellabaum (310

W. Elm),Carl Wilkenfeld (317 W. Elm),Darryl Payne (100 Bantry),

Dean Markle (95 Bantry),Peter Marshall, Chuck Meteer (307 N.

Granger),Tim Snider (368 Bryn Du Drive),Joe &Dorie Overman

546 N. Pearl),Tom Scono (313 Beechwood Dr),Phil Wince and

George Fackler (Fackler)

Minutes of October 7, 1996: Approval postponed as copy supplied

was incomplete.

Minutes of October 21: Postponed pending approval of October 7

minutes.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

Joe and Dorie Overman, 546 N. Pearl -TCOD review

The Overmans wish to construct an addition to the rear of

the house, which would include a bathroom, utility room, and 2- car garage. It would be 35' closer to the rear lot line than

ordinances permit and exceed maximum lot coverage, and BZBA has granted variances. Mr. Overman' s original plans were changed in

order to improve the neighbors' view by offsetting the rear wall

1 foot insteadcloser to Pearl and side-loading the garage with one door of two. They will not be cutting the tree but will need to remove some of the hedge.

Mr. Shulman asked about the TCOD and wondered whether, with the hedge cut down, the garage would be more visible. Mr.

Overman thought the garage would not be very visible from Pearl. MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James Pletcher, 448 West Broadway -TCOD review

additiMorn. Pletcher wishes to remove the porch and add a two-story 12' deeper to the rear. BZBA granted a side yard

setback variance but TCOD approval is required by GPC. Mr.

Pletcher said the addition would be out of sight from the road. MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION. MR. STANSBURY

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Austin and Cynthia McElroy, 110 East Elm --Signs

Two gray signs with blue letters are planned, 6"x12" each,

upstairs on the walkway, facing the other building, in order to

help people find the business.

MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE.

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND

Public Hearing

George Fackler, 1960 Newark-Granville Road

I. Introduction by Staff

Mr. Reyazi stated that he received this development plan on

Tuesday so he has had insufficient time to study it thoroughly.

He has a letter from Jerry Turner, engineer, pointing out detail

that needs to be' addressed, the main issues of which are:

A. Possibility of access to Galway

B. Need for a sign plan

C. Some review of utilities by. staff

D. Lighting plan

E. Landscape plans

This plan does not include the drive-through. Mr. Shulman asked

how it got to be a public hearing with incomplete plans, ially since espec- we usually hold work sessions, and Mr. Reyazi said

he got the plans far enough ahead to post notices but was expect- ing the plans sooner than they actually arrived. He has not had

time to speak with Mr Turner. Mr. Shulman suggested holding a public hearing but taking no action and continue the public hear- ing until next time when we have more details. Mr. Reyazi said

the application for the drive-through was remanded from Village Council to BZBA.

Mr. Salvage asked whether this means that we would be

gathering input for two weeks, and Mr. Shulman said that if we tchloinsek it tonight, we will have to vote next time and he does not we will be ready. Ms. Robertson s€ated that the public

cannot respond to an application they have not seen. She added

that as a courtesy we could hold a hearing for the information we diso hina.ve and continue it or start a hearing when all information Mr. Shulman thought this application more detailed ·than most and should be granted even more time for study than single- use plans.

Ms. Robertson stated that we cannot conclude a hearing when plans are incomplete and staff has not had a chance to talk with the engineer. It' s crucial that our procedure is fair to every- one. Mr. Salvage indicated that since the notice was posted, we must hold the public hearing tonight but does not feel it appro- priate to hold it open until next meeting. Mr. Reyazi has clari- fied with the law director that we can continue the hearing. Mr. Salvage questions this statement, and Mr. Reyazi said he was not sure about closing a hearing tonight and holding another one in two weeks, since adequate notice must be given.

More discussion on incomplete information, deadlines, and

2

0 ·- 11

121 /

continuances ensued. Ms. Robertson stated the public hearing

will be continued, but Mr. Wince is not satisfied and thinks it

should not be continued without first hearing from him. Mr. Wince

stated that they have been here before and that Village Council

remanded because they said they presented new material. BZBA did

not say they needed new material. At Village Council all BZBA' s

questions were answered, and now it' s unfair to bring up new

questions. Ms. Robertson explained that it is to Fackler' s advantage

to continue.

II. Presentation by Applicant

Mr. John Oney [spelling uncertain; he did not sign visitor

list],architect, stated that they have provided sufficient detail

as requested in the ordinance for site plan approval. He

explained the concept for the multi-use development, designed to

fit in with Granville' s appearance and provide an upscale commun- ity service area. The drive-through was eliminated, and they are

encouraging a pedestrian-friendly environment. They plan to

provide access to neighboring businesses, and are planning one curbcut. They have widened the road for deliveries and drivethrough-

customer convenience.

Lighting Plan. A plan was provided, and he said all light- ing fixtures are total cut-off. He pointed out where lights

would be situated. There will be a baluster and a 25' tall

total-cut-off, 400-watt light pole. All lights are 5 ft. candles

to %ft. candle. If any light runs off to the residential area,

additional shields will be added.

Landscaping Plan. Mr. Ryzer [?st]ated they tried to main- tain the character of the developments in the area and Granville.

They will plant sugar maples, evergreens, crab apples, oaks, flowering trees, and shrubs. Plantings will surround each build- ing and column, and islands will have red maples; the intention was to produce color each season. Turf will be planted under shrubs and trees.

TrafficP/ arking. Mr. Oney stated that traffic studies have been done.

Site Utilities. Mr. Snyder[c?iv],il engineer, they stated that are taking storm water to where it needs to be directed. This is not the final plan, but water runoff and fire hydrants are located and everything in the ordinance has been covered. Referring to Mr. Turner' s letter, two concepts are questioned: sanitary sewer and storm water drainage. Sanitary water would go down Cherry Valley to Wcotgato. There will be on-site retention of storm water. They can orily discharge storm water at the same rate as at present so they have to retain it in pipes. Mr.

Snyder met with Mr. Murphy regarding easement access across private property for discharge. Mr. Murphy is correlating that with plans he has for new businesses.

III. Public Comments.

3

CARL WILKENFELD asked whether plans exist for the other section

of the plot. He asked whether this plan is in the TCOD. He

is concerned about long-term maintenance. He also asked about

lot coverage, which was answered at 65 per cent.

MARY FELLABAUM asked how much space would be actually in

turf, and Mr. Ryzer said all areas not used for parking or

planting would be turf.

IV. Ouestions from GPC.

Ms. Robertson asked about entrances to the building, and Mr.

Oney said they would be at the convenience center, restaurant,

the bank, and the offices. He also responded that there would be

eating areas outside with patio and cafe seating with fence. He

added that there will be delivery-truck screening and trucks will

probably have to back up.

Regarding TCOD, Mr. Oney thought there was a 70' lot setback

line from Newark-Granville and 50' from C. V. Apparently the

property is grandfathered from TCOD requirements. This was

discussed with Mr. Tailford, but Mr. Reyazi wants to check on

this point.

Mr. Stansbury asked about the dumpster, and there will be

two, behind cedar screens in the delivery area.

He asked whether lot coverage includes the future building,

and Mr. Oney thought each phase conforms with 65 per cent

coverage.

Mr. Stansbury asked about storm water approval from Bird &

Bull, and this is still pending.

Mr. Reyazi asked whether the storm sewer manhole on Galway

is in fact there yet because he could not find it. He will check

with Mr. Turner on this issue.

Mr. Stansbury asked about the lighting plan, and he preferred

that lighting plans show lumens. Mr. Oney said all lights

would be no glare, total cutoff. No foot candles will go off the

property. Mr. Reyazi has given them our proposed guidelines.

Since they are not approved yet, Fackler' s cannot be forced to

abide by them, but Mr. Snyder said they will do their best to

adhere to our rules.

Mr. Shulman wanted to see depictions of elevations of all

four sides. Mr. Oney said they will have the same proportions and

the same materials on all sides, and he described the color

scheme. Building is 30' high, and the fireplace is workable.

Mr. Stansbury asked where traffic would come from because

Bird &Bull asked for a left-turn lane. Mr. Reyazi will clarify

location with Mr. Turner.

Ms. Robertson asked what would be on second floor, and the

answer was nothing. They are aesthetic dormers.

4

Access to Galway was questioned by Mr. Reyazi, and Mr. Only

said future entrances would line up with Fackler' s entrance. Mr.

Murphy is receptive to this plan. Mr. Reyazi stressed the

importance of having a clear understanding with Mr. Murphy on

accesses. Mr. Wince objected that this issue was not voiced at

the GPC work session, but they added it anyway. Mr. Salvage

stated that GPC has always required developers to plan to connect

adjoining properties, and Mr. Reyazi hoped Fackler' s would be

more specific and participate in any compromise that may be

necessary. Mr. Wince would be happy to meet.

Mr. Snyder wondered why GPC needs such a deep level of detail

and was told GPC needs to consider whatever the engineers

bring up. Mr. Snyder assumed that only what was in 1175 was

necessary, and he has not spoken with Mr. Turner. Ms. Robertson

cited GPC' s prerogatives in 1175. 04( e) "Any other plans

determined necessary by the Planning Commission."

V. Comments from Applicant.

Mr. Wince stated that applicants have complied with

everything requested.

VI. Planning Commission Discussion.

Ms. Robertson stated that looking at the engineer' s

questions is part of the overall decision-making, and although

GPC might lack expertise in this area, they can ask for reassurance

that these items are being addressed. Mr. Shulman added

that GPC has never approved an application with as many questions

as Mr. Turner raises.

Applicants asked for a list of pending areas where questions

remain, and Ms. Robertson reiterated them:

1. Response to Mr. Turnerts letter -Mr. Reyazi to follow UP.

2. Lighting plan. Guidelines are likely the to be approved in themn. ear future, and it is advisable that applicants adhere to

3. Tree and Landscape Committee approval.

4. TCOD recommendations from staff.

5. Access drive to Galway in a more realistic fashion. Discussion among all parties. Mr. Wince to set up meeting.

6. Depiction of elevations on all sides.

7. Signage and dimensions.

8. Materials of building.

9. Lot coverage calculations.

10. Delivery truck turnaround issue resolved. Proof that

trucks can get in and out.

11. Guidance from fire department re location of hydrants

5

and assurance that fire trucks can get through area.

12. Effects of any of the above on the site plan.

Mr. Wince wants staff completion of their review by next

meeting. Mr. Reyazi reminded them that he only got the plans

late Tuesday afternoon; Mr. Turner was going on vacation, and he

had to prepare and mail packets for committee members. He

promised to do his best to get all necessary information.

Ms. Robertson stated that this hearing is continued until

next meeting, November 18. Mr. Wince again stated his objection

to a continuance.

Lighting Plan will be first on Nov. 18 agenda.

Finding of Fact:

Mr. Reyazi stated that the law director said we rhust prepare

a written F. F. for all decisions. He did not like one person to

prepare them for the others; we need to take turns. Small

application approvals can have their F. F. written up the same night. The F. F. s need to be adopted as part of the GPC

decisions.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO FORMALLY ADOPT F. F. FOR THE HICKMAN AND

IGA APPLICATIONS AS PRESENTED. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. .

MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO FORMALLY ADOPT THE SALVAGE F. F. AS

PRESENTED. MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO FORMALLY ADOPT THE OVERMAN, PLETCHER, AND McELROY F. F. AS PREPARED TONIGHT.

Adjournment:

Next Meetings: 11: 15 p. m.

November 18 and December 2

GPC Minutes 10/21/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 21, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Lyn Robertson, Richard

Salvage, Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury

Members Absent: Keith Myers

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),M. H. Banchefsky,

Franklin Bush, Bridget Kahle, James Schmidt (Concepts in

Lodging)M, ike Cuswell (Higgins &Assoc.M)a,ry Fellabaum, Nancy

Ross, Charles Cohen, Eloise DeZwarte, Mark Cassidy, Brenda Boyle,

Dean Markle, Darryl Payne, C. K. Barsky, Dan Bellman, Carl

Wilkenfeld

Minutes of October 7, 1996:

Page 1, Move the Ed Vance comment to Citizens Comments from

Ms. Robertson' s opening paragraph. Next paragraph delete "Ms.

Robertson reported that." To Citizens Comments, add Several

other citizens also addressed this issue.

Page 2, Line 14, add at this time this. . .

Page 5, Line 6 from bottom, change "oldest Country Hearth"

to "The Management company that will manage this has been there

since 1960."

Page 6. Under Part 6, "Ms. Robertson asserted that maybe we don' t need another hotel."

Page 6, Mr. Salvage asked whether more note could be added

to flesh out the discussion, and the secretary said she would add

what she had. (See revised notes.)

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE MINUTES; MR. SHULMAN SECONDED,

AND MINUTES WERE TABLED PENDING REVIEW OF REVISED MINUTES.

Citizens Comments:

Ms. Montgomery reported on four items from Village Council:

1) She requested Village Council for approval to tape GPC minutes,

and Mr. Plunkett said village staff was pursuing the issue of appropriate equipment not only for taping but also a P.A./ microphone system for all groups.

2) Regarding time limits on meetings, Mr. Hurst and Mr. Reyazi have talked and Mr. Reyazi is researching other communi- ties, Dublin, etc. Mr. Hurst will prepare a draft, including

other procedural matters, such as time limits for decisions.

Although GPC can initiate their own procedures, it would be helpful to have input from other communities.

3) Concern about how best to notify the community about meetings. A a notice in the Advocate would satisfy the legal requirement, but more people would read the Sentinel, which might not be printed 15 days in advance. She added that Granville

Village has a "home page" in the Internet, and when it is fully operational, notices may be placed there.

4) At the advice of Mr. Hurst, the Mayor has appointed an ad hoc committee to address the problems and issues in terms of

1

public hearings, adjudicatory hearings, including one member per

group. Rob Drake will represent V. C.

Ms. Robertson added that GPC also discussed placing "home"

applications first on the agenda. Mr. Hurst wondered whether Old

Business should come first. Ms. Robertson thought that uncomplicated

applications could come first. Mr. Salvage suggested

handling New Business before Country Hearth (CH) tonight.

Ms. Robertson read from a letter she received from an Erinwood

resident, William E. Wilson, who objected to undesirable

additions to the area. Residents were told that businesses would

be small shops and boutiques, and the writer urged GPC to deny

CH' s application.

Old Business:

John Compton, 341 East Broadway

At the last meeting, Mr. Compton was asked to provide drawing, which has a not yet been received. Mr. Shulman' s on-site

inspection learned that the excavation project will cut into the hill by about 5' and result in removal of two trees on the hill.

Mr. Compton responded that his intention is to remove dead trees and· replace with new ones. He added that he and his neighbor are discussing removing a dead tree between the houses. Drawings are still required.

Jeff Kobunsky, Lot 31 Thornwood Ad.,W. Broadway

Mr. Reyazi said that he has not heard from Mr. Kobunsky and it' s assumed drawings are not ready yet. Mr. Shulman added that

we need these materials before we can approve application. After

looking at the drawings, GPC members may want to visit the site. Application still on the table.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO PLACE NEW BUSINESS HERE ON THE AGENDA. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mark Cassidy, 332 E. College -Home Occupation Sign

Mr. Reyazi has received two letters regarding the appli- cation for an oversize wooden sign, one in support of the condi- tional use, one against the sign. Any approval needs to be tcioonndistiigonnsa,l upon BZBA approval. Members discussed home occupa- which are rare. Ms. Robertson would like this appli- cation to go to BZBA before GPC. Mr. Stansbury added that color samples were not submitted. Mr. Shulman said a sign should not exceed 2 sq. ft. and this one should only say "PepperBerry Cottage" because it is for identification, not pass-by clients. Mr. Cassidy said the color will match the cream on the house with

b,

2

3

red letters.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED PENDING

RECEIPT OF AN EXACT DRAWING WHICH DOES NOT EXCEED THE 2

SQ. FT. MAXIMUM. MR. SHULMAN SECONDED AND MOTION WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Nancy Ross, IGA, 484 S. Main Street -Banner

Ms. Ross is requesting a 15 sq. ft. vinyl promotional banner

at entrance to the IGA for a two-week period. Since it is temporary

and others have received permission for banners, there is

precedent.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE A TWO-WEEK BANNER NOVEMBER 24-

DECEMBER 7. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Ms. Robertson wants banner removed promptly after the event.

Joe Hickman, 326 N. Granger

Mr. Hickman is requesting removal of three windows on south

side and replacing with one similar window. He wants to replace

dining room with a bathroom. Later he will replace the front

door. He will replace siding with brown shake, and shutters will

go back on.

MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE REMOVAL OF 3 WINDOWS; MR.

SALVAGE SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Hickman will bring in the application for door removal later date. at a

Old Business Continued

Country Hearth (CH) Inn, South Galway

The public hearing has been closed, and tonight GPC will discuss remaining items and ask applicant questions. Mr. Hurst

hcaissiosna.id GPC has 15 days from October 7 (tonight) to make a de- Mr. Reyazi received a response from Bird &Bull

101/ 89/6) about site plan drawings. He has not yet spoken with wODiOthT about storm water runoff, but our engineer has been in touch engineer from CH. ODOT will approve plan with modifications

but the permit has not been issued yet.

said Mr. Stansbury questioned the lighting plan and Mr. Schmidt lightsth.ey agreed at last meeting to remove dormer fluorescent They are total cutoff lights; they' ve done everything possible to adhere to the code.

Ms. Robertson referred to the Bird &Bull letter, Item 1, STORM water. Mr. Reyazi said detention will be revised to meet village standards. Detention will be in the parking lot. Items 2 and 3, Mr. Reyazi stated that in case a private drive becomes public, it would have to comply with village standards, i. e.,detention, concrete thickness, and pipe size;

construction standards do not necessarily apply with a private

drive. The difference in concrete thickness is about 1",and Mr.

Schmidt said they gould comply with the village standards.

W6+47 /r D-*

Mr. Schmidt stated that they have no intention to make this

a public road. Item 1 will be taken care of at ODOT approval.

Items 2 and 3 are non issues. Access road will make curb and

storm drainage to public standards.

Mr. Shulman that the engineer planted this concern in his

mind and it got him to thinking. He would rather see this constructed

under village standards because in the future a new

business might be interested in the road being public.

Mr. Salvage thinks the approval could be subject to the

engineer' s approving storm water plans. Mr. Shulman wanted to

state that approval should be to public road standards because of

the possibility of its being public in the future. Mr. Reyazi

added that Mr. Zarbaugh (and Village Council) preferred roads

being built to public standards rather than changing them later.

Mr. Banchevsky stated that if GPC wants a public street, the

village should pay for building it. Mr. Schmidt stated that in

regard to public street standards on storm water runoff, applicant

will comply with public standards. Other issues are

different and are not part of this letter {Bird &Bull}.Mr. Reyazi said that Mr. Turner has nots *t made a recommendation

regarding concrete depth.

Ms. Robertson asked about Items 5 and 6. Mr. Reyazi stated

that grading refers to sites surrounding CH. Mr. Turner needs to approve.

Mr. Banchevsky stated that he has no problem making this contingent upon approval of village engineer. Mr. Shulman

indicated that we can go beyond and say what we would want in

case it becomes a public road.

Mr. Shulman asked for more information regarding card-key entrance into building. He suggested limiting access by main

door only and having the doors at the ends fire exits only. Mr.

Schmidt said entrance is for guests' convenience, and exits are visible to central desk clePk, and he would like to talk with the police to hear their comments. CH will work with any authorities to ensure safety for their guests. He added that they never called themselves "bed and breakfast, "although some citizens have used that phrase. Ms. Robertson stated that even with a key-card access, non-guests can be let in.

Mr. Shulman asked whether pathway easements could be made to adjoining lots. Mr. Schmidt stated that they would cooperate but there are issues related to greenspace requirements. A paved bvaikreiapnacthe. could force a shortage and they might have to have a requires But they can eliminate some landscaping if the village a paved pathway.

Mr. Shulman stated that he received a packet from village citizens, including a petition with about 50 signatures regarding the traffic situation and asked whether GPC members received it.

4

5

Ms. Montgomery felt that as the public hearing is closed we

should not accept new input. Ms.

information could be considered;

mation has to be set aside.

Robertson said that any new

Mr. Salvage thought new infor-

Mr. Shulman asked whether we have a final figure on lot

coverage, and Mr. Reyazi answered that not having the digitized

plan, it' s hard to work up the information CH has, but it appears

to be under 65 per cent coverage. We can ask their engineer to

provide our engineer with a copy of the permeability plan and do

a calculation. It could be made part of the engineer' s approval.

Ms. Robertson asked whether the power company could tear

down screening on easements and wondered whether it was really a

good plan to allow landscaping in the easement, but there is no

other place to put it. Mr. Schmnidt said the electric company

must replace and repair any damages they incur. It' s common for

easement areas to be landscaped. Mr. Reyazi does not think

easements can be excluded as greenspace. Ms. Robertson asked

whether anything can be built on a utility easement, and Mr.

Reyazi said it could, but the utility company cannot be ible for repairing respons- anything put on top of their easement.

Ms. Robertson stated that although BZBA approved the application,

we are charged with ensuring that traffic is not a

problem. The traffic was studied on Galway rather than at Rt.

16/C. V. She imagined there would be a problem with left-turning traffic. Mr. Schmidt referred to the June 11 letter to Doug

Tailford, which states that CH would add about 20 cars, which

would minimally impact C.V.R/t. 16 and concluded that no site improvements are needed. Ms. Robertson thought that there might still be stacking problems. Also, study was done in May, a time

when college students are gone. She is skeptical of the traffic study. She thought. the actual peak hours would be different

from those in the study.

Mr. Reyazi stated that CH would add to traffic flow onto Galway and C.V.,but it would be more spread out and not affect the big intersection very much. Mr. Schmidt added that any other use of the site would generate more traffic.

Ms. Robertson asked whether the size of the sign was nego- tiable, and Mr. Schmidt said that in April they discussed appear- ance and sign. He was given instructions to have the sign smaller than Wendy' s, which, he thinks, is 100 sq. ft. They have submitted a 36 sq. ft. sign and a question should have arisen sooner if this is a problem. Even though most of their customers are local, a 4x8 sign is not unreasonable so they can attract some pass-by traffic. Ms. Robertson did not think anything was approved. She said that CH is coming to a community different tfrhoemswtahnadtairtd.was last spring and Wendy' s should not be used as

Mr. Stansbury asked what CH is saying to neighbors who do

not want them to build there. Mr. Schmidt said that once they

get to know us, they will like us. They will be very good

citizens of the community. If the question had arisen sooner,

they might have addressed it. CH is a modern hotel designed to

fit in with the architecture and with security in mind. Room

rates are high enough to attract better clientele. There are

about 30 other CH hotels, some of which are in residential areas;

the majority are in major intersections near small towns. Ms.

Robertson asked whether they would be willing to hold a public

forum, and Mr. Schmidt would, although he did not think it was

necessary as part of the site plan approval process. Ms.

Robertson thought it would be appropriate because there are a lot

of people who are not sure they want CH here. Mr. Schmidt said

they would have been willing in the first three months of this

process if questions had arisen, but thought it might be possible

after the process is over.

Mr. Stansbury said that CH has met all conditions traffic will not be impacted severely. he feels badly that so

many people are against the application. He sympathizes with

them but sees nothing in the code which would preclude approval

except the size of the sign. The lighting of the sign may still be an issue. Mr. Reyazi said CH will have to meet the lighting

fixture and intensity guidelines and should be a condition of

approval.

MR. 5* 5Bl#ieY MOVED THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS

SUBMITTED WITH (1) TOTAL SIGNAGE OF 36 SQ. FT.,A 32' HIGH 2-

SIGN BACK OF THE DUMPSTER AND A 4' DIRECTION SIGN ALONG

GALWAY; (2) THAT THE APPLICANT SATISFY ALL LIGHTING AND 1-

CONDITIONS PLACED ON IT BY THE VILLAGE ENGINEER IN REGARD TO

SINTFOORMRMWAATTIOENR AND EASEMENTS ; 3() PRESENTATION OF LOT COVERAGE 3 TO ENGINEER. 4) RECOMMENDATIONS FROM TREE AND d

ALALONNDGSCWAPEESTCOMMITTEE ARE TO BE MET, AND ADD MORE PLANTINGS / SIDE OF PROPERTY.

Mr. Shulman added that: (1) future bonnections have bike 3 wpaetsht aancdceessa.s t (a2c)ceHsesessugbgeesetsxifot-romnally' .c o(3n)siHdeerwa6tiuolnd gliikveenthtoe making roadwMayr. toSablveagbeuidltidtonovt iltlhaignek and village staff recommendations.1 (-) nor to impose we can tell them what doors to use more stringent road standards. These items should ' be suggestions only. Mr. Shulman wanted this worded as formal consideration.

MR.

MR.

MR. SALVAGE AMENDS THE ABOVE MOTION TO EXCLUDE ACCESSES AND ADHERING TO VILLAGE STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC ROADS BUT ADD PEDESTRIAN BIKE ACCESS AS NEEDED IN THE FUTURE.

THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

SHULMAN MOVED TO INCLUDE HIS THREE ADDITIONAL ITEMS IN S_TANS@WRY-' S MOTION. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED.

UU-C 420,

6

Mr. Shulman indicated he would vote in favor and wanted to

express appreciation to citizens for their work. It is the BZBA

who considers the use issue. He respected CH for going through

work sessions and hearings and listening to our views and making

modifications. He wishes the sign could be smaller and did not

think any sign should be more than 24 sq. ft. Actually, he noted

that small specialty shops might be more detrimental because of

more parking, etc. The most detrimental aspect concerns the

neighbors.

Ms. Robertson will abstain, mainly because she cannot vote

for something in good conscience where people have not been

allowed full input.

Mr. Stansbury added that Mr. Myers had brought up a suggestion

about 9' parking spaces instead of 10'. Mr. Schmidt said

the reason for 10' spaces is that guests say the doors bang the

next car at 9'.

Mr. Stansbury asked what would they do if the lot coverage

exceeded 65 per cent, and Mr. Schmidt said they would decrease

the permeability beginning with reducing the parking spaces.

Mr. Stansbury thinks Mr. Shulman is on target. Part of his

reason for voting for the motion is in looking through conditional

uses, other businesses would generate more traffic. He

appreciates the neighbors' position.

Mr. Schmidt had closing comments. They are going to formally

consider eliminating entrance to the east and west exits.

They will analyze this internally and also sit down with the

village forces regarding safety. Regarding the road, they are willing to analyze building it to physical dedication standards.

If they have to do this, they think the village should help. They will report back to Mr. Reyazi.

Mr. Salvage suggested recommending to Village Council it be that a public road, but Mr. Shulman disagreed. Mr. Schmidt

proposed a meeting with Mr. Turner on subject of the road. Mr.

Shulman wanted to add other appropriate people.

Mr. Reyazi thought this would take at least three weeks. It

was agreed that resolving this issue will be done within 30 days

between Mr. Reyazi ahd applicant.

A VOICE VOTE WAS TAKEN, RESULTING IN 3 YES (SALVAGE, STANSBURY, SHULMAN) 1 ABSTENTION (ROBERTSON).

Adjournment: 10: 50 p. m.

Next Meetings: November 4 and November 18

GPC Minutes 10/7/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 7, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson,

Richard Salvage, Marc Shulman

Members Absent: Gary Stansbury

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors Present:

on attached sheets.

Scott Rawden (Sentinel),

Minutes of September 23, 1996:

and about 31 names as

Page 1, correct Harold Attebery' s spelling in Visitors

section.

Page 3, Line 5, change "curbcut" to existing driveway beyond

the proposed home.

Page 4, Line 1 under SuperAmerica, change "this" to the site

development plan.

MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES; MR. STANSBURY

SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Robertson has rdceived a request to tape record our minutes.

She assured the caller that we have been thinking about

this, and it was agreed that Ms. Montgomery will present the

request to Village Council.

Ms. Montgomery suggested putting a time limit on our agenda

at meetings so that after a certain time we will not be considering

new applications. She did not think we could alter plans

for tonight' s session but she presented the idea for future

meetings. Mr. Salvage thought we had an obligation to hear applications

in a timely fashion and wanted guidance from Village

Council. Mr. Myers would rather schedule a special meeting when the agenda is heavy.

Citizens Comments:

Ed Vance suggested that meetings would be improved with

microphones and P. A. system in addition to tape recordings.

Carl Wilkenfeld was concerned about inadequacy before public of publicity hearings or particularly important meetings. He

stated that a number of interested citizens did not learn about tonight' s session until this afternoon. Several other citizens

spoke to this issue (Paul Stone, Ed Vance)C.onstance Barsky said it was in the Advocate, but a lot of Granville people do not see the Advocate. Mr. Reyazi said that staff will be more diligent in the future, while at the same time considering the expense to the applicant for multiple notices. Ms. Montgomery will present this concern to Village Council.

Old Business:

Jeff Kobunsky, Lot 31 Thornwood Ad.,W. Broadway -TCOD Setback -

Mr. Kobunsky met with Mr. Shulman and Mr. Reyazi on site to

consider the best setback for the proposed house. In TCOD, 100'

is the minimum setback. The artist' s rendering is not prepared

yet. Mr. Winters, next door, has concerns about the steepness of

the driveway with a 100' setback and a lack of privacy with the

house so far back. The Winters house is set back 50'. Several

times cars have slipped down towards his house, so he would

rather see a 50' setback and a less steep driveway.

Mr. Shulman stated that fewer trees would have to be cut

down at 100' setback and feels that the driveway steepness would

not be a problem. The TCOD wishes to preserve trees, for this

benefits the entire community. The house would be less visible

at 100'.

Ms. Robertson suggested a different approach; Mr. Randall

Arendt at the Planning Conference suggested clustering homes, but

Mr. Kobunsky stated that at this time that would not work with

the sewer situation. Mr. Reyazi said we need to specify the

setback before the zoning permit can be issued. Mr. Salvage

suggested that Mr. Winters and Mr. Kobunsky consult together to

work out a compromise and return to GPC at a later date, and Mr.

Kobunsky agreed to this.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION UNTIL APPLICANT

BRINGS BACK A DRAWING SHOWING TREES TO BE CUT, LOCATION OF

PROPOSED HOUSE, AND MR. WINTERS' HOUSE.

Mr. Myers stated that GPC has forced other applicants to adhere to setbacks in TCOD. Mr. Reyazi suggested that steps can be

taken to ensure that cars do not slip into Mr..Winters' yard.

Perhaps the house could be moved farther west. Ms. Robertson

added that color of the house is important also. Mr. Shulman

wants to be sure the Tree and Landscape Committee is involved.

MR. SHULMAN SECONDED THE MOTION, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Eloise DeZwarte, 1921 Newark-Granville Road -Sign

Ms. DeZwarte is subletting the Nationwide to substitute her sign property and wants color. for theirs in the same size and same The top half of the sign will be used by new tenants. The proposal is consistent with other signs at that location. MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Public Hearing

James Schmidt, Country Hearth Inn, South Galway -Site Plan

Ms. Robertson reviewed the format for the public hearing on site development plans, which is different from the use issue.

2

Part 1, Introduction by Staff. Mr. Reyazi clarified the

fact that we are considering the site development plan, not the

use issue. Given that the use was approved by BZBA, we need to

consider the plan to best serve that use. Changes recommended

at the work sessions have been addressed. Lot coverage remains

an issue at a questionable 65 per cent, as well as the 32' sign

8' sign is permitted),which would require variance. The Tree

and Landscape Committee has requested adjustments to the landscaping

plans and Country Hearth has agreed to accommodate them.

Country Hearth has addressed all concerns in previous meetings.

Some engineering issues are still to be resolved but are not

difficult to resolve; Jerry Turner' s approval is required.

Setbacks and parking are within regulations. The lightihg plan

meets with guidelines, but they conflict in terms of fixtures

Granville is considering, so they may need to work for more

compatible lighting fixtures. The guidelines clear. are not really very

Part 2, Applicant' s Presentation. Mr· Schmidt introduced

Mr. Anderson, Mr. Roberts (Jobes Henderson), Mr. Kuhlman, Mr.

Rafeld (Landscape Designer),Mr. Banchefsky (attorney) and Mr. Segna. He stated that changes recommended in first work session

have been addressed:

A. Provided easement for ingress and egress

B. 5' sidewalks from Galway to Country Hearth

C. Dumpster enclosed and materials match building

D. Landscaping between parking lot and Rt. 16 to screen parking area

E. Pitch of roof line

F. Addition of windows to east end

Changes recommended in second work session:

A. Received variance from BZBA for roof height

B. Moved building slightly to the east

C. Moved dumpster from NW corner to SE corner to incorporate it with ground sign

D. Samples of siding and brick were shown

E. Signage: Two requested: (a) 4' x8' facing Rt. 16, lit on one side and (b) entrance sign at Galway.

Mr. Roberts showed site plan and stated all changes have been incorporated and engineering concerns have been met. A. Main entrance is on the north. Access is from interior

hallways.

necesBs.arTyh. ey added a pedestrian path to Wendy' s with steps where

C. There is a single entrance off Galway with private driveway to Country Hearth. Access to any future neighbors will be provided.

acceDs.sT)h. ere are 59 parking spaces (three for handicapped

h

3

1

r.

E. They will utilize the public water line, and sewer is a

tap into existing system behind Wendy' s. Piped storm water will

go into the right of way of Rt. 16. ODOT said it was adequate.

Storm water detention will be at the parking lot. Storm water

was originally to go down Rt. 16 and they removed it so that

Granville will not handle it at all. Jerry Turner agrees with

this.

F. They determined by computer analysis that lot coverage is

61. 5 per cent.

G. Landscape will surround the building. They are not

asking for any variances and all issues brought up have been

addressed.

Mr. Rafeld, landscape architect, stated that they responded

to GPC concerns, i. e.,screening the parking lot and minimizing

impact of the building. There< exists vegetation providing

screening from highway. They will add low evergreen shrubs 6'- 8'

tall, which will grow together and provide a significant screening

wall. To soften building, deciduous trees will be placed

around the building, but they left some holes so the building is

not completely obscured. There are trees on either side of

dumpster, and planting will be done at the base of the sign. The

only view of Country Hearth will be coming west at Wendy' s. The

lighting plan will conform with Granville' s standards. Lighting

must reveal the building and also provide security.

Part 3, Public Comment.

MR. WILKENFELD objected that: A. Notices of the hearing

were not imparted to neighbors in view of the motel, and he never

saw notices in the Sentinel. B. It' s ·important that GPC learn of

citizen feelings about the project, which is a nuisance and a

hazard and it depends on high pass-by traffic. There will be

noise from busses bringing clients late at night, students

partying, drug dealers, prostitution, fighting over parking

spaces, shootings and stabbings, police with sirens. He urged

GPC to consider the real-life issues of bringing in this project.

KIRK COMBE added that it' s disturbing that Country Hearth is

not starting out as a good neighbor because when neighbors

brought up concerns, Country Hearth brought in legal power. He

had several concerns: A. Hazard and nuisance of drugs. B. A motel is not a neighboring Murphy Group. shop or boutique as advertised by the C. As long as Country Hearth advertises as a "bed and breakfast type motel,i"t should not be necessary to advertise at the highway.

ED VANCE asked why this issue is brought back at this time. toThietr.e was a protest about the conditional use and what happened Mr. Reyazi responded that there are two separate issues: 1) Appeal of the conditional use granted by BZBA and (2) Appeal was dropped by Village Council. They refused to take it up and

4

dismissed it. We are talking about the use of the site as a

motel, since BZBA approved it, then it' s fair game for GPC to

consider development plan based on that approval. Mr. Vance

wondered how it could have been dropped, and Ms. Robertson said

we needed to refer to the Law Director. Nobody lives within 200'

of the project and is therefore not eligible to appeal.

RON WINTERS is not sure we need more motels. Conditional

uses will change the character of Granville rapidly.

CLIFTON CRAIS read a letter from Phelps Jones, resident of

Village Green, speaking as a private citizen. He has conducted

inquiries into drugs, and he finds that a motel attracts criminal

types, such as drug dealers who use motels as storage and

processing places. Highway motels provide easy access to dealers

and swift getaways when police come near. Hazardous waste is

produced. Mr. Crais added comments of his own, asking what would

be the impact on local overnight businesses, and how much money would be generated from this business? He also asked what Would

be the affect of declining property values on the village. He

wondered how Country Hearth can ensure it will not attract the

wrong type of people.

JEFF DUNCAN thought it was interesting that whenever he

stopped in a motel in California there were families living

there. Does Country Hearth have economical, monthly rates and do

they have ways to control families from moving in? Does Country

Hearth plan to have food and alcohol?

CONSTANCE BARSKY asked questions about the harmonious nature

of the business with the neighborhood. What about occupancy

rates and length of average stay. How do they safeguard the

neighborhood? She worried about the traffic congestion. A big

sign on the highway should not be granted for a bed and breakfast

type operation. She asked about the planned obsolescence and the

length of time needed for trees to grow to 40' tall.

CARL WILKENFELD asked what is covered by 65 per cent lot coverage, and Mr. Reyazi stated it is what is permeable. Mr.

Wilkenfeld wishes Mr. Reyazi would recalculate this.

ED VANCE thought GPC should not be considering lot as great as 65 per cent and added that coverage a motel is not the right type of development for that site.

JIM JUMP asked when the clock starts for the required 45-day decision, and Mr. Reyazi said the date when all completed materials are submitted to him is when the clock starts. GPC has

15 days after conclusion of hearing to present Finding of Fact. Using September 10 as the date all materials were completed, the decision would be required around October 18.

5

1

Part 4, Commission Questions.

Mr. Myers stated that Mr. Reyazi noted two items where the

applicant failed to meet code: lot coverage and signage.

A. As far as parking on the west side, he asked whether it

would be possible for additional landscaping along Rt. 16. Mr.

Schmidt agreed to this suggestion.

B. Regarding a lighting plan, we do not have a foot-candle

lighting plan. Mr. Reyazi stated he has it and that our lighting

plans require that the lighting engineer must say that the plan

meets with our guidelines. Mr. Schmidt said that this issue

came up and they hired a lighting consultant who got all

information available and added that up with foot candles and

said it meets Granville standards.

C. Mr. Myers asked about fluorescent strip lighting and Mr.

Schmidt said it' s in the dormers providing soft interior lighting

of the dormer. Mr. Myers thought the lights did not really serve

any purpose; they appear to be advertising rather than safety

lighting. He added that GPC made Bob Evans remove extra

lighting. Mr. Schmidt said the lights are aesthetic; they would

like to keep them but would be willing for give them up.

D. Regarding lot coverage, Mr. Myers asked whether they need

10' parking spaces. At 9' they, could considerably reduce the blacktop area.

E. He asked whether our engineer has approved the storm

water into the ditch, and the answer is "Not yet, "but if there

is a problem, water could utilize existing storm system.

Mr. Shulman had questions:

A. To his question about roof structures, the answer was there are none.

B. He asked about useable life of the building, and the

answer was 40-60 years, depending on the area. The management

company that will manage this has been in operation since 1960.

C. How long do trees take to grow? The answer was for a

40-foot tree, it would take about 10-15 years.

D. He asked about additional lighting and whether fixtures

are total cut-off, they and it is Mr. Schmidt' s understanding that are.

E. Final approval is needed from ODOT and the village engineer.

Ms. Robertson had some concerns:

A. How much area is behind Country Hearth, and Mr. Schmidt

bsauidilt there is about a 5-acre site and an office complex might be there.

B. Regarding pedestrian access to bikepath, Mr. Schmidt said there is a 5' sidewalk and the driveway is 30' wide. A walkway with steps goes to Wendy' s. Country Hearth has entrances on all four sides, with electronic keys.)

C. She asked whether Country Hearth would consider an 8 sq. ft. sign, and the answer is they were asked to keep it the

6

same size as Wendy' s. To be readable, 4' x8' is about as small as

Possible. from the higHhewaadyd. ed that it is not designed to bring people in

D. Ms. Robertson asked whether they have any data on volume of traffic. Mr. Schmidt stated they commissioned a traffic study and the village consultant agreed the study overstated the traffic expected. This was discussed in detail at BZBA.

E. Regarding air conditioners, Mr. Schmidt said every room has an A. C.,and they are very quiet. F. She asked whether there were any other decorative lights,

aanndd Matr. aSllchmidt, said there would be paired wall sconces at ends entries. There would be soffit lighting at main

entry, shining down on the sidewalk.

Part 5, Final Comments by Applicant. Mr. Banchefsky,

attorney, thanked the group for considering the site plan. He stated that applicant has done everything in its power to adhere to the code, and if citizens are unhappy with the code, they can change it. He was concerned about process; after two work ses- tsoionassk, fthoer. only real issue is size of sign and that is not much If there are concerns about nuisance, there are Provisions under local and state law to address them as they

loecmcsu.r. Granville has sufficient police manpower to handle prob- The structure is good looking with sensitivity and we ask GPC for approval within 45 days.

Part 6, GPC Discussion and Vote. The application needs either to be continued or voted upon. Ms. Robertson asserted

that maybe we don' t need another hotel. We should look at an economic impact statement. Mr. Myers stated we are bound by the conditional use regardless of whatever was represented to buyers in the subdivision. GPC has to consider the land zoned SBD and the codet-h-at' s what we have to work with. A lot of issues

raised tonight are pertinent with the Comprehensive Master Plan 12C*SI·pSYS 182 ISGSS *cRNSS ZStnaolte*toosass KS-Sv:eT issue has been taken out of our decision-making process. Coumse- munity concern is important and people are revising the CMP and ultimately the zoning code. Ms. Robertson said that some vague language allows us to ask more questions. She has trouble voting

oSnhuslmoamnething which the people have not had their full say. Mr. suggested waiting 15 days for a full membership. A delay would allow more citizen comments.

Mr. Salvage ·thought that since they meet all standards

eSxhcuelmpatnthe sign size, the application should be approved. Mr. does not argue that but prefers waiting 15 days. He said

that Village Council postpones things, but Ms. Montgomery said in two of those cases the applicant asked for postponement. Mr. Reyazi reminded the group that any approval must be conditional upon engineer' s acceptance.

Mr. Salvage was certain that in the work sessions we did not

f.

7

indicate a problem with signage. Ms. Robertson said that

public comment was blocked at BZBA. Mr. Banchevsky said he

objects. Mr. Wilkenfeld' s appeal was not blocked by Country

Hearth. Ms. Robertson thinks it' s important that the community

have its voice; it' s not going to happen here because we are

limited to site plan. Ms. Robertson will abstain.

Mr. Banchevsky said that there was no objection at the first

or second sessions; they adhered to the law and nobody objected

at the other sessions until Carl Wilkenfeld filed his appeal. Mr.

Banchevsky added that the Law Director said Village Council

should not hear the appeal, and they are doing what the Law

Director said should happen. Mr. Wilkenfeld added that the

applicant filed against the village in a court of law when they

heard about the appeal. They do not want to hear citizens'

comments. Ms. Robertson said it is not unreasonable to ask for

more time and wants more time to consider the purpose of the

code, which is to preserve harmonious aspects of the town,

health, safety, general welfare, etc.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MR. MYERS

SECONDED THE MOTION. MAJORITY APPROVED MOTION WITH 3 AYES.

MR. SALVAGE THEN MOVED TO VOTE TONIGHT.

Mr. Myers prefers to defer voting until the 15 days are up.

Based on public comment, there might not have been sufficient

public notice given. The attorney thought it unfair to get

additional public comment, and Mr. Myers stated in that case we

will not accept public comment.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION. MR. SHULMAN SECONDED.

MOTION TO TABLE WAS WITHDRAWN.

New Business:

Russ Adams, 111 N. Prospect -AROD Application

Mr. Adams stated that they have a single-paned glass window

in a 150-year-old house and they want two side by side double

glazed windows with small divider panes.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. SALVAGE SECONDED

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Police Department, 141 East Broadway -Sign

Mr. Reyazi explained that a new lighted identification sign

is needed to replace the one destroyed by wind over the entrance.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. MYERS

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Nancy Ross, IGA -Sandwich Board

Ms. Ross stated that they are requesting a sandwich board so

they can have extra advertising and promotion. It will be on the

walkway outside the building.

8

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE; MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jules and Rochelle Steinberg, 425 E. College -Fence

Kristen Pape explained that the Steinbergs fence with request screen lattice, 6, high on south side, 4' high on west side. They will leave existing trees, and Ms. Pape provided a landscaping plan.

MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE; MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James Young, 223 N. Granger -AROD Application

Mr. Young wishes to remove interior chimney and replace with

red brick exterior chimney. It will be 12' from property line

and will match style of chimney next door. They will need to remove an attic window.

APPLICATION WAS GRANTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.

James Hudgens, 124 W. Maple -AROD and air conditioner

Changes to driveway from gravel to cement have been made,

and GPC has no objection to driveway. The Hudgenses also wish to add an unscreened A.C. on side of house, but Mr. Reyazi has not received acceptance from neighbor. He will call her and then

make his decision on A. C.

MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE DRIVEWAY; MR. MYERS SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

John Compton -341 East Broadway -AROD Application

Mr. Compton wishes to renovate the 100-year-old house and is

asking tonight for siding and windows. The wood siding is not

salvageable and he wants to add almond colored new wood veneer faced cove lap siding atop the old. They don' t want to change

any of the gingerbread. He is also requesting permission to

excavate on shared driveway in order to level the lot for a

turnaround and garage at a later time. There was a garage there

once. Mr. Reyazi noted that there is no other parking for the property.

There are two doors on the house; they want to remove one and insert a vinyl coated all wood double-hung window. No drawing was provided for the project. MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO VILLAGE

PLANNER' S APPROVAL OF DRAWING. MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Announcements:

Mr. Myers suggested amending the by-laws to decide on a time

after which we hear no new cases. Mr. Salvage added the

9

possibility of hearing Myers New Business before a public hearing. Mr. stated that a problem presents itself when there are a large number of applications to be considered in a meeting. Mr. Salvage Suggested limiting public comments to 2-3 minutes. MS. Robertson prefers to let the people have their full say. Mr. Reyazi thought maybe we could change our procedure to wait 30 days to make a Finding of Fact. Mr. Hurst can draw up something for us to consider. This will allow 30 days after a hearing to make a decision and another 30 days to get a Finding of Fact to Village Council. Mr. Robertson thought this would give GPC more time to think about an application.

Adjournment: 10: 50 p. m.

Next Meetings: October 21 & November 4.

GPC Minutes 9/23/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 23, 1996

Minutes

Present: Maxine Montgomery, Lyn Robertson, Richard

Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury Members Absent: Keith Myers

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Phil Watts and Harold AThaxttotney ]a(nG*dranMvairllke MSwiellte) rm, aNneil SRuopbeerrAtsmone r i(Bcaa)p,tCishtarCleshurTc.h),WJoehsnt

Woolpert),Jeff Kobunsky, James Harf (120 Wildwood) , Frank Murphy 51 Wexford)

Minutes of August 5:

Page 1, delete comma after "base" 2 lines above New Business.

Page 3, No. 2, change name to Mary Lou VanAtta. Page 4, Line 3, add after SuperAmerica Way and lines up with

Proposed Bob Evans entrance. Page 5, last line in Paragraph 5#, change IARGER to 35 SO. FT. Paragraph #6, line 5, change

Commission to Village. Add to Line 8: MS. ROBERTSON brought up the point that it may not be an approved use for the zoning code. Mr. Salvage explained that GPC had received legal interpretation from Mr. Hurst that a gas station was a permitted use. GPC decided not to consider the "use" question because of this. Ms. Robertson

still had reservations about such a use. Page 4, The correct name is Street Lighting Committee. Please

change in second paragraph wherever it occurs. Page 6, Line, 9, change "the" to to after "Westgate Drive".

Page 7, Paragraph 3, Line 4. At the beginning of statement in

parentheses add "We discussed..." Page 7, add MR. SALVAGE asked whether any members had

gUestions about the site plan, since the Kissacks should know about them soon, and nobody stated an objection. Ms. Montgomery remarked

that apparently all the members find the site plan all right. Discussion tonight: Ms. Robertson wished that Mr. Salvage had given a definition of "site plan." Her interpretation of "site

plan differs from that of Mr. Salvage and she did not recall giving tacit approval to his question. Her objections at this point were: 1) the discussion was really a work session, (2) that it was 11: 30 at night and everyone was growing weary, (3) she thought this would be a BZBA decision and not discussed at length at GPC, 4( ) she did not want to go on record as approving the drive-through as part of the site plan; she would prefer to say, There were no specific

objections at that time, but this was a work session."} MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE AUGUST 5 MINUTES AS AMENDED;

MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

August 19 Minutes: Page 2, Line 5: The total is 10 acres; the split-off area is 3. 79 acres SRDA and 6. 25 acres PUD."Page 2, Line

9, after "future owners" change to Mr. Hickman said a 10' easement

1-s OK_ if the church retains the storm MR. STANSBURY sewer. MOVED TO APPROVE AUGUST 19 MINUTES AS AMENDED;

MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

September 9 Minutes: Page 1: Change the KIRK COMBE paragraph, last sentence to: Mr. Shulman added that Bob Evans said they were not required to come back to GPC and we had been surprised that they were doming back. Now they have changed their minds about

coming back. Mr. Salvage thought they had nothing new to be considered."

Page 2, Line 2, change r"estaurant" to "convenience center was denied by BZBA..."

Page 3, last line of Paragraph 2, "Someone said we don' t really want extra lanes. Paragraph 4, "A letter of record supporting approval of the Longaberger application has been received from MR. HECKELMAN,..."

Page 4, line 6, change work session" to old business.

Capitalize Citizens Comments. In the CYNTHIA CORT paragraph,

delete "negative, " in Line 3. In the JANE KING paragraph, Delete last sentence, add T"he proportions of each thing to everything else will not look out of place, he stated." Page 5, Paragraph 3, MARY LOU VAN ATTA. Under GPC

Discussion, Line 3, change "swirling" to curving gracefully. Paragraph 3, "Mr. Stansbury agrees with some 1 and 4) of these

dcoencciseironns. but still would be against approval. This is a tough He is reluctant to vote against an individual property wowhicnher. b _ut ,what we are preserving is an entrance to Granville, outweighs...."

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE SEPTEMBER 9 MINUTES AS AMENDED;

MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

Jeff Kobunsky -

in TCOD

Lot 31 Thornwood Addition, West Broadway -Setback

Mr. Kobunsky has submitted a development application and plans for one of the houses in the Hersam property in the TCOD. Mr.

Reyazi had difficulty arranging a work session for this project, and Mr. Shulman did not want to take action until more details were forthcoming regarding the site. Mr. Kobunsky was expecting tonight to be a work session.

The ordinance calls for at least a 100' landscaped greenbelt from ROW, but GPC has discretion, confirmed by Mr. Hurst, to reduce this minimum; Mr. Kobunsky 'stated that if the house were moved farther back than 50',more trees would have to be removed; also, the steep terrain would make building difficult. Mr. Kobunsky Provided a plot plan showing the general footprint desired. He

2

4__-,

2 -71GrS »

showed a drawing of the similar terrain. same house which he built on New Burg on a Mr. Kobunsky received a letter (8/12/96) from the L.C. Health Department, and their requirements regarding septic tanks and leaching systems are pending. Mr. Salvage asked whether

Mr. Kobunsky would abandon the Gerbcut and the answer was Yes. Ms. Robertson wanted to remind people of the purpose of the

TCOD, which is to preserve the general way this area looks from the road. She wondered what it would look like when completed. Mr.

Kobunsky said the canopy would not be preserved but there would be

trees around, and not too many trees have to be cut down to gain

alocockess. Mr. Kobunsky would be willing to take a group out there to at the trees to be removed. The lot lines are established,

and the neighbor to the east is 35' away. MR. HARF stated that he was on GPC when they discussed this issue before; they did not want to budge from the 100' TCOD and did nlootts.want future homes to interfere with the canopy of the three

Ms. Robertson summarized that more information is needed

before action is taken: 1) specific drawing with dimensions 2)

diameter and location of all trees and which must be removed, (3) a sense of how it will look, (4) site plan, and (5) site visit. MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PENDING VISITS BY THE GPC AND VILLAGE STAFF. MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

First Baptist Church, 115 W. Broadway -Replace Slate Roof

Mr. Neil Robertson presented plans to replace the slate shingles from the roof and replace with asphalt shingles. He

cSohouwlded a sample of shingle, which is as near to slate color as they find. The slate on bell tower and spires will be kept. Slate is much too expensive to replace. MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. SALVAGE

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY. MS. ROBERTSON

ABSTAINED.

Anthony Barsotti, 344 East Maple -Vinyl Siding

The Barsottis need to cover the old wood siding with vinyl, and Ned Roberts thought the gray with silver coloring would fit best into the village historical code. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. STANSBURY

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Frank Murphy, Erinwood -Subdivision without Plat

Northtowne Properties requests splitting off a 1. 926-acre parcel from the 19. 157-acre parcel in the commercial subdivision.

Mr. Murphy said they need the lot split for Country Hearth. The

zoning will stay the same ds it is.

3

4

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. STANSBURY

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

6/T/6

SuperAmerica, Cherry Valley Road -Final plat applicatioJrfk* 4111 , 0 . Following Village Council' s tabling of t-hesapplication for more information, Mr. Thaxton explained that the plat has been breuvtiewed by engineers Bird &Bull. This is not a gas station plat, a site plan. He stated that the plat had been conditionally aSppurpoevreAdmebryicaGPCwthilrleegwievekes Ea( g€f> 6{seeacmreinsutetso ofth8e5/ G9/6raannvdill8e1/ 9La9/.nkd] Conservancy. Utilitieuslv,e-rts, easements, access road, and

Broairddw &idths are marked on the plat, as requested by Jerry Turner of Bull.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. STANSBURY

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Eloise DeZwarte -1921 Newark-Granville Road -Sign

Ms. DeZwarte is moving her business to the Erinwood area. She is not present tonight to answer questions, and Ms. Robertson wondered what would be in the blank top half of the sign. It is

apparently a 30"x38" brown wall sign with ivory lettering and border, but GPC does not know where it will go. GPC wants to

review what was told to other tenants about combined and identifi- bcuastiionnesss.igns there and how many are allowed per building and per

MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION UNTIL MORE INFORMATION

IS RECEIVED ON SIGN STANDARDS AT ERINWOOD COMMERCIAL. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Harold Attebury, Granville Milling Co., 400 South Main Development Plan Review/ FHOD permit

CSD

The property in question was rezoned to Community Service District in November, 1995, and now Mr. Attebury wishes to build two one-floor unlit buildings behind the Mill. Since the project is in the floodplain, the Flood Hazard Overlay District permit must also be obtained before construction can begin. 1) The 48x84

frame building is for dry fertilizer storage, and (2) the 601*20x16 steel building, similar to the NAPA building, is for various trucks and rolling stock. The existing building south of the bikepath will remain.

Mr. Shulman inquired about the aquiferw/atershed, and Mr. Attebury said the wells are upstream 12/ mile. Mr. Watts said the buildings would be raised 2' above the existing building floor. Mr. Reyazi will address comments by ODA, EPA, and Natural Resources to determine whether everything is in order, as well as whether the storage of fertilizer is a safe use {see Bird &Bull letter of 9/4/96}.Mr. Shulman also wants to review the concerns

5

of Village Council and GPC when rezoning was considered. Ms.

Montgomery said Village Council this had no problem with rezoning for purpose. Mr. Shulman was also concerned about pedestrians on rtheelocbaikteedp.ath, and Mr. Attebury showed him where the drive would be Mr. Reyazi read minutes from GPC meeting (9/19/95),

excerpted here:

Mr. Attebury said the fertilizer is the same substance in

place for twenty years. It is monitored by the EPA and the

Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Attebury said there would be over 200' between the Mill

and the neighbors and that there are trees as a buffer. They

are not planning to remove any trees. Ladd Michael

reported that the nearby residents met to talk about their

concerns: 1) Changing the zoning decreases the amount of

open space in the village; (2) noise from trucks and dryers

and dust pollution with the operation moved closer to houses;

3) filling in the wetland and floodplain is not a good idea;

4) with rezoning, anything can go in there in the future; (5)

the bikepath must be safe and protected from excess wear and

tear on the pavement; (6) The historic value of the village

needs to be protected; (7) The neighbors have been restoring

their property and wish their investment to be protected. Mr. Michael suggested alternatives, i. e.,behind the IGA or near the water treatment plant or enlarge the current building....

Excerpts from the October 2, 1995 minutes}:There was a community meeting, and Mr. Attebury is willing to add

screening and move the buildings. But some people are still not satisfied. Mr. Westall spoke for the neighbors, repeating

much of what was enumerated at the last meeting, adding (1) Additional large warehouses are not in Granville' s best interest; 2) more business means more truck traffic and

noise; (3) GPC should protect the neighbors because they have

protected neighbors in other areas from commercial expansion;

4) Granville needs a buffer between commercial and

residential areas; 5) the Mill should be responsible for

landscaping/ screening. Mr. Westall challenged the GPC to come

up with a reasonable compromise. He thought a complete plan is needed for the entire area, i.e.,South Pearl extension

A compromise was eventually forthcoming: Mr. Huey moved

that we recommend to Village Council that the OSD portion in yellow on the zoning map be changed to CSD. He moved also

that the SRD-B portion be unchanged. Mr. Salvage seconded,

AND THE MOTION PASSED BY 4 TO 1 (Mr. Myers)

MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO ACCEPT APPLICATION CONTINGENT UPON (1)

ISSUANCE OF THE VILLAGE' S FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT PERMIT AND (2) VERIFICATION OF APPROVAL OF STORAGE USES PERTAINING TO

FERTILIZER.

Mr. Shulman asked whether there were any other issues

discussed by Village Council or GPC at the time of rezoning, Mr. Salvage but thought the ground had been covered and rezoning approved. Mr. Shulman was reluctant to approve application without citizen input. The applicant was willing to wait until Village Council minutes are consulted. Mr. Reyazi agreed to review these

minutes with Mr. Hickman as soon as possible to see if there are any significant questions asked.

THE ABOVE MOTION WAS AMENDED BY CONTINGENCY (3),REVIEW OF VILLAGE PLANNER AND ASSISTANT VILLAGE PLANNER OF

VILLAGE COUNCIL MINUTES TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER

ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED HERE. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT

WAS UANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Stansbury asked about drainage, and Mr. Attebury said the

water drains off the hill into the Mill property, and as soon as the Village installs a storm sewer, the problem will be alleviated. The Mill people had the pond filled with dirt. Mr. Stansbury

wanted it noted that this situation will be resolved in time.

L. C. Historical Society, Alligator Mound -Sign

Alan Miller stated that the Historical Society wants to erect an oversized single-sided marker to help preserve the area and to educate people about the mound. The Homeowners' Association has

granted approval of such a sign. The sign will be like the one at the 'Robbins Hunter Museum, made of cast bronze or aluminum. It

will be 3. 5' x3. 5' and fastened to a post ca. 6' tall. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION, AND MR. STANSBURY SECONDED. IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 10: 20 p.m.

Next Meetings: October 7 and October 21.

Mr. Stansbury will be absent on the 7th.

GPC Minutes 9/9/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 9, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Lyn Robertson, Richard

Salvage, Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury Members Absent: Keith Myers

Also Present: Reza Reydzi, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Carl Wilkenfeld (317

W. Elm),Mary Lee VanAtta, Ron &DeDe Cook (1137 C. V. Road),F. P.

Case (102 Shannon),A. C. Turner (113 Shannon),Steven Katz (221

E. Elm),Larry Nadwodney (217 Sunrise), Eloize DeZwarte (338 E.

College),Bill Wernet (134 S. Mulberry),Kirk Combe (133 Wicklow),

Charles 0-Keefe (4 Samson Place),Jane King (439 N. Gran- er),Cynthia &John Cort (1632 Newark-Granville Rd),J. Jimieson

Longaberger),Roger Kessler, Carmen MacLean (221 S. Pearl),

Carole Sue McCluskey (128 S. Cherry),Mark Zarbaugh (313 Spellman)

Minutes of August 5 and August 19: As Minutes for these meetings

were not distributed prior to the meeting tonight, approval

will be postponed until the. next meeting.

Citizens Comments:

MARY LOU VAN ATTA inquired as to why Minutes needed to be

approved, and the chair responded that sometimes notes were not

quite clear (or grammatical)- Ms. VanAtta thought the person

whose comments were being. reconsidered should be consulted, and

the chair agreed.

Upon being asked whether minutes should be recorded, Mr.

Reyazi said he would investigate this possibility.

KIRK COMBE asked why Bob Evans was not present tonight, and

Mr. Reyazi reported that he had received a FAX from them this

afternoon saying they plan to go back to Village Council instead

of the GPC. This will have to be a public hearing. JANE KING

asked why Bob Evans is ignoring the GPC, and Mr. Stansbury denied

that they were ignoring us. Mr. Shulman added that Bob Evans

»said they wg»lde-ome back here and work things out but they

54 1c/ /7(changed their minds; Mr. Salvage thought they had nothing new to 5123, 4 / ,r --- Citizens seemed uneasy about this matter, and Ms. Robertson

stated that she wrote a lengthy report on the denial and Mr.

Salvage wrote up his dissenting opinion and these are available

for anyone to read.

MARY LOU VAN ATTA· asked about zoning districts, and Ms.

Robertson explained the different zonings in that area and the

conditional use permits and variances required. in each.

1

2 6n

LARRY NADWODNEY wanted information on Fackler s, a, d members

explained that the drive-throuh E*n-=m-iJe-n*t- was deniedan/d .the

drive-through bank was approved.

JANE KING thought that if Village Council could overturn

GPC's decisions, one of those bodies was breaking the law, and

Ms. Robertson explained that it was a matter of interpretation.

Ms. King thought the ordinance should be tightened up, but Mr.

Shulman explained that people will always want variances. Mr.

Stansbury stated that some decisions were at the discretion of

the GPC.

CARL WILKENFELD added that people can· appeal Village Council decisions to the Court of Common Appeals. He added that the

Comprehensive Master Plan ·( CMP) said Cherry Valley Road (C. V.)

should be protected from commercial zoning, but now the whole.

street is zoned commercial, and how did that happen? Mr. Shulman

explained that rsidents on C. V. came in and asked for a rezoning,

and since the view was that eventually it would all be

commercial, the Village chose to change to commercial zoning on

C. V. at an open public meeting. Ms. Montgomery stated that

originally it was agricultural, but when it was annexed, the

Lodge, State Farm, and the church were built and some neighbors

felt they had to rezone in order to protect resale value of their homes. There are a lot of controls in the code.

DEDE COOK stated that they enjoyed being part of the township

on C. V. but after annexation they are part of the village,

even with the Newark address, but don' t feel as though they are

part of it. She also stated that with the added traffic on C. V.

it is difficult to get out of their driveway. They feel forced

into selling because of the increased activitY. Increased

business in Newark has d-Iso contributed to the traffic congestion

at the C. V. Rt. 16 intersection. She added that eliminating the

right-turn-on-red has slowed down traffic and added to stacking-

KIRK COMBE asked about traffic studies and felt that the

traffic at the intersection is appalling now. Ms. Robertson

responded that studies are being made but don' t necessarily agree. Mr. Salvage added that applicants do traffic studies, and

they are referred to our traffic engineers. It' s a major concern

for us. Mr. Shulman stated that SuperAmerica will undertake

extensive improvements to C. V, Road South and are responsible for

getting sewer service there. Mr. Combe has talked to engineers

and heard that "You can' t build your way out of a problem.

It' s nonsense, he said, to add onto an already existing problem. Mr. Shulman said that Marathon had a traffic study but BZBA

turned them down because their use was too traffic-intensive.

Mr. Reyazi reminded people that we have not accepted McDonald' s traffic study; we have asked a lot of hard questions of them.

Mr. Shulman said that Wendy' s, erhop-resents a leto-f-the nr1-31,- e-mT

was built before current regulations went in.

JANE KING asked whether any firm numbers of traffic exist,

and Mr. Reyazi stated that there are standards for a business

with such and such a seating capacity. The issue becomes localized

when examining where the traffic comes from. The numbers

are simple, he stated, and commercial traffic studies differ from

our own traffic studies. ELOISE DEZWARTE wanted firm numbers of

how many cars the intersection can handle, a reference to be used

for each applicant. But the problem, Mr. Reyazi stated, is that

if the first business takes. up all the cars recommended, the next

applicant cannot build. #Le don' t really want extra lanes.

4Ar<©»A6'*4«AL

KIRK COMBE stated that a person has the right to profit from

his property but not at tHe expense of other people. People on

C. V. -have been burdened and many felt forced into going commercial,

which encourages sprawl. BILL WERNET added that we make

choices about what we enable people to do with their land and still maintain a high quality of life without adding to traffic

problems. The best alternative is a sensitive development

generating low traffic.

CHARLES 0- KEEFE could sense a moral issue peeping through

the facts and arguments. We have heard statements about problems

generated by Wendy' s traffic engineersth-e- developers said there

would be no probmems, but that has not proven true. This suggests

that the instruments of analysis are not taking into

account the complex and unforseeable consequences of the actions

allowed to transpire.

A letter of recordt*

has been received hy MR. HEMPELMAgN, anpepirgohvbaol rof the application across the street.

Le- + R' bf'8-¢New BusineSss: «-FMK d\ £U-UZ*+4

Judy Gunther, 119 East Elm -sign

The proposed green awning sign was described· by Roger

Kessler as similar to the one at Hare Hollow. It will extend 36'

and will be 19' 8" long and will say -Gift Baskets by Hare Hollow."

It meets all requirements of the code. MR. STANSBURY

MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR, SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Public Hearing:

David Longaberger, 537 Jones Road

Village Council has remanded the matter of the gate and

driveway to GPC. They have reduced the gate by 2',which would

make the new gate structure 78- wide with a height of 15' at its

highest point. Before the hearing began, CARL WILKENFELD announced

that notification was not duly given; therefore, the

hearing is illegal. Mr. Reyazi agreed but stated that even

though changes were made, this is reallyold business, a continu-

3

ation, and not subject to notification in the library or outside

this building. But he feels he cannot pass judgment on this

decision and will seek the Law Director' s advice. If the changes

are substantial, this must be treated as a new application-

Members debated the next course of action and decided to treat

this as a Fnrk ses-s-i-en with public input. 64Ax4, 0 - i...

citizens Comments:

Mr. Jimieson from Longaberger wanted to expedite the process and agreed that Public comment would be acceptable tonight. He

stated that the gate design has been changed to a smaller scale wrouEht iron gate without arch, reducing the length of the brick

wall by 10 , taking out one pillar, and shortening the gate in

order to lessen the massiveness, according to the suggestions he

heard at the previous session. No changes were made in plans

for the roadway, tree lide, and guard house.

Mr- Salvage stated that only the gate and fence fall within

the Transportation Corridor Overlay District. Ms. Robertson

stated that within PUD we can consider the entire Plan.

CYNTHIA CORT, who lives across the street and whose property once was part of the Longaberger property, has done research on

the property and has come up with several no-gative reasons for

denying approval: 1) The roadcut will bring on a cumulative

effect on traffic congestion; (2) The historic vista of the front of the house should be preserved; when the trees grow, one will

not see the house; (3) They already have a perfectly good en- trance road with gate.

Mr. Jamieson understands the desire to protect historic

integrity but Mr. Longaberger' s vision it to make enhancements

and add a level of grandeur, which will also preserve the proper- ty.

JANE KING stated that the public was under the impression

that the polo field would remain as it is, and Mr. Jimieson

stated that the design will be in scale with the house. .The t>E€cvs---1*9L-- gh.eJti*,12Ilt5T;*ttt-'-'4*2-05:i 1J- okt LIL,Uff .

JonesCARRoMaEdN, MACLEAN asked why they' could not leave the drive on and Mr. Jimieson repeated that Mr. Longaberger wants

lt ln front to carry out his vision.

JOHN CORT,· who lives across the street, had concerns: (1)

The roadcut and traffic issues and (2) There are no other massive

gates in town, and some way needs to be found to make a transition

between the mansion and the other homes in the neighborhood·

The gate is a statement of distance rather than a complementary

aspect to the neighborhood. Mr. Jimieson stated that the guardhouse

will not be manned except on special occasions and that they are attempting a compromise.

4

r-

St

STEVE KATZ read a statement by CONSTANCE BARSKY offering

reasons why the application should be denied: 1) The CMP

decrees minimal roadcuts; ( signed 2) A significant number of voters the moratorium on growth; (3) The CMP cites the need to

Protect remaining vistas. Ms. Barsky recommended the GPC uphold

their original decision.

CARL WILKENFELD commended the GPC for their original decision

and their willingness to listen to. the public. His concerns

rest with the extra roadcut and the need to reinforce the CMP

regarding preserving and protecting historic landscapes and maintaining rural areas.

MARY LEE VAN 14T*R*thought that the traffic would not be difficult unless Mr. Longaberger is having a big gathering. The

fact that it is a mansion lends a certain amount of uniqueness

and leeway to the gate. · She did not think it will disturb the

look of the house. She thought a person should be able to do

what he wanted with his property.

ROGER KESSLER added that Mr. Longaberger is a good citizen and does things first class and we are fortunate to have him in

town and he has a right to take the separate parcel in front for

a front entrance.

GEC_ 21=21=aina

In answer to a question from Ms. Robertson, Mr. Jimieson

stated that Mr. Longaberger will not compromise with the Jones entrance .= wirling around the front of the mansion. He added that

Mr. Longaberger does not want to develop the front parcel,

whereas any other owner would be tempted to do so.

Mr- Salvage thought Granville was fortunate that finally

someone came along to restore the mansion. He also thought a 30-

acre parcel had the right to an access and that this is the most

likely way to preserve the openness. Mr. Salvage also thought

that: (1) Mr. Longaberger has improved the historic nature. <2>

He did not feel that the application falls within architectural

review. (3) The current driveway is an inappropriate entrance.

4) Since we always recommend tree-planting, we cannot very well

object to his doing so along the driveway.

SO PMS.(L f«1L I)

Mr. Stansbury agrees with4 *@- of+these concerrf but still would be against approval.C)This is a tough decision and fe-eres t-T! atre--*a-e*oueesr+eip»-i,A@cul-r-:b-n-und s by sincidrrd* o It an UWllCSlV--

vRinllen,ept*y.J but what we are preserving is an entrance to Gran- which *iw&e@ighs the applicant- s request. It' s not right

that Granville should lose its last open area. Mr. Longaberger

needs to look at the bigger picture; this is a perfect opportuni- ty to preserve something original.

Mr. Shulman has the same feelings and thinks we do have

authority to act. because of the TCOD. Regulations regarding the

5

fence speak directly to this. GPC turned down the current fence

because of its massiveness and got overturned. He would like to

maintain the view of the house. The trees lining up the drive

appear massive.

Mr. Stansbury suggested merely opening up the existing fence

would be a better idea. The height of the structure greatly

exceeds maximum regulations. The tree line definition leading to the house up leaves the gate a separate entity ftom the. house.

He would have to vote against it and suggested stages instead.

Division of the field is a separate issue from the gate.

Ms. Robertson is concerned about the charge to the GPC to

carry out with wishes of the CMP and preserve historic landscaps.

There are other places in town where we seriously consider

preserving historic integrity. To enhance the existing drive

would preserve the understated elegance of the property. In PUD

we do have the right to say what goes in there and she would not be able to vote for it. Originally we rejected the fence and

suggested putting it closer· to the house.

Mr. Jimieson' s sense from this meeting was that the gate was still. too massive. He said they might consider an opening in the

fence. Mr. Longaberger will not compromise on the central drive.

Mr. Salvage wanted the minutes to reflect that this application

is considered Old Business.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH MODIFICATIONS

AS PRESENTED TONIGHT BY THE APPLICANT. MR. SHULMAN SECONDVEODT,

ESA.ND THE VOTE WAS REJECTED BY 1 AYE (MR. SALVAGE) AND 3 NO

Announcements:

Erinwood s proposed subdivision has baen postponed until September 23.

Dow Chemical has suggested placing a memorial in Opera House

Park. A fountain would present maintenance problems, and other

suggestions are invited.

Adjournment: 9: 50 p. m.

Next Meetings: September 23 and October 7. Mr. Stansbury will be absent on the 7th.

GPC Minutes 8/19/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 19, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Marc Shulman, Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Gary Stansbury Members Absent: Richard Salvage

Also Present: Joe Hickman, Assistant Village Manager

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden (Sentinel)M, ary Kay Roberts (745 Cherry Valley) , Kevin Bowen and Scott Williams and Will Rawlinson. Latter Day Saints)J,ohn Thaxton and Mark Sweeterman (Super- America)C, harles T. West (Woolpert)C, arl Wilkenfeld (317 W. DElrm.))M,ary Fellabaum (310 W. Elm)G, loria D. Lloyd (82 Victoria

Minutes of August 5: Mr. Salvage, who is absent tonight had

requested we postpone approval of minutes until he can be pres- ent. A preliminary review was begun tonight. Page 1: Delete first comma in last sentence of Citizens

Comments paragraph.

Page 3: #2: Change MARY LEE VAN ATTA to MARY LOU VAN ATTA.

Page 4: The correct name is Street Lighting Committee.

Please change in second paragraph wherever it occurs. Page 5: 5: Change the word LARGER in last line to 35

sq. ft.

The group thanked Sandy Ellinger for her excellent minutes.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

George and Mary Evans -126 South Cherry

The Evanses wish to enclose the side porch with four thermal windows and a 6' sliding door. Mrs. Evans showed pictures of a similar house with the improvements they are seeking. She dtreimscrwibeildl the wood flooring; all trim will be white, and no new be added. The porch is in the back of the house, not visible to the street. MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;

MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2486 Newark- Granville Road -lot split and rezoning

Kevin Bower explained that the church property is partly PUD and partly SRDA and they want to (1) sell the larger L-shaped portion around the perimeter. (2) To increase parking area to 126 tshpeaces, they are seeking a change of zoning immediately around church to SRDA in order to be consistent with the land con- taining the church. To avoid flooding, they also wish to con- struct a detention pond and route storm water to a storm sewer on

Westgate Drive, using a ditch easement, which has been obtained

except for one small section. (3) An eagle scout has requested permission to install a flag pole at the church parking lot. 0

Members questioned Mr. Bower about the total acreage, and he

said the total is 80.1 acres; the split-off area is 3. 79 acres. 5 #2D/ f/ f

Mr. Myers asked about the outlet for ground water, and Mr:- 6. 9-5-PUD

Hickman stated that the Village Engineer has not looked at the plans yet. In theory this should work well because there is

access at the culdesac. Any future owners of the split-off

ProPerty would have to tear out the pipes and put in bigger ones. Mr. Myers felt that the church ought to gain enough easement to / accommodate future owners, i. e.,a @0" storm sewer easement to /0 town facility„

7e.-speerarIFIri-t+ra vill-2g[ ee-asement. Mr. Bowers 4

-5t-atedth-at if/when the split-off property is sold, they would grant necessary easements. The easement would remain private;

the church is responsible for sewer to Westgate Drive. Mr. Myers would prefer to see an improved appearance of the pond and marked

Ard,<4 c.2'NIS Il 13U5ipti .411 A,M 42£04 The parking lot cannot be built unless the lot is split; in

SRDA zoning, parking lots can be constructed. The storm-water

reduction pool system needs approval of the village engineer.

1) MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE LOT SPLIT APPLICATION FOR

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS. MR.

SHULMAN SECONDED; AND IT WAS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY. MR. STANSBURY

ABSTAINED.

2) MR. MYERS MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO VILLAGE COUNCIL THE

REZONING OF THE RECENTLY SPLIT-OFF LOT TO SRDA AND THAT IT BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW OF THE PARKING LOT STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT BY THE VILLAGE ENGINEER. MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY. MR. STANSBURY ABSTAINED.

3) MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED FLAGPOLE (IN

THE TCOD) AT A LOCATION TO BE MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 40 FEET BACK FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY AND HEIGHT OF POLE NOT TO EXCEED 30 FEET.

MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

SuperAmerica -Lighting Plan

Mr. Thaxton stated that the site development plan was approved at last meeting with contingencies, and they have addressed these. They have dropped signage one foot for the 35' sign, and they have clustered the landscaping in front. Mr Myers thought it could still be clustered more, which would make it easier to maintain, and Mr. Thaxton will follow up on this suggestion. Mr. Thaxton showed night and daytime photographs of the Sign over the doorway, and he showed color samples of the sign and a schematic of the 18"x17' sign. Just the face lights

will show at night. There will be a small satellite dish on the roof of the canopy. The ground sign is internally lit.

Regarding the Lighting Plan, Mr. Thaxton said they have

2

reworked it and done what they could to make it work. It meets

the code. They have dropped the wattage of the lights. Hickman Mr. stated that the Village Engineer has not seen the plan yet. Mr. Myers would like to see still less lighting, but Mr.

Thaxton stated that the lights are recessed and up about 13',but Mr. Myers said that right under the fixtures, the light would be double at least. Mr. Thaxton is largely concerned about safety.

Ms. Montgomery gave Mr. Thaxton information from the Street

Lighting Committee about a proposed new style of lights for the village and thought that he might consider adhering to the new style. Mr. Thaxton said that these are street lights rather than commercial establishment internal lighting. Ms. Montgomery said

the Street Lighting Committee is considering asking for these lights in all commercial businesses. Mr. Thaxton thought that

simpler lights were more appropriate for parking lots.

Mr. Thaxton stated that there is an additional light at the

entrance for safety. Ms. Robertson asked whether there is

fsluofofidcileitn. t light at the dumpster, and Mr. Thaxton said it will be

MR. MYERS MOVED THAT WE APPROVE THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING PLAN

FOR SUPERAMERICA AS RESUBMITTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT MEET

WITH APPROVAL OF THE VILLAGE ENGINEER. WE ALSO APPROVE THE

LIGHTING OF THE SIGN ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. MR. STANSBURY

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9: 50 p. m.

Next Meetings: September 9 and 23. Mr. Myers will be absent on the 9th.

GPC Minutes 8/5/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 5, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Montgomery,Keith Myers,Lyn Robertson,Richard Salvage,Marc Shulmall,Gary Stansbury

Also Present: Joe Hickman,Assistant Village Manager

Visitors Present:Scott Rawden SentineD; ...

Minutes of July 15: The following corrections were noted: 1)Page 1 -Mr. Hickman's title

should be added. 2)Page 2,C "onceptual Plan,Hersam Property,West Broadway"A -t Mr.

Stansbury's request,change last sentence offirst paragraph to 'Mr. Stansbury is concerned about

a driveway up the east steep slope and Mr. KobUIlski feels this is manageableA."t Mr. Shulman's

request,change first sentence ofthird paragraph to I"n slimmary,GPC is generally ceptive to the location ofthe houses,but had a number of reservationsA,"t Ms.Montgomerys' request,

change the third sentence ofthe third paragraph to 'Mr. Salvage would like to see a lot ofthe

steepness ofthe driveway reducedM..R,,,"STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES;

MR-SAT«VAGE SECONDED;MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS

CORRECTED.

Citizens Comments: ED VANCE (Thornewood Drive)noted,in re the SuperAmerica

application,that the allowable uses under the PCD zoning code,do not include a filling station;

therefore,SuperAmerica would need a BZBA variance in order to conform to village ordinances.

BOBBIE FALQUET N( ewarkG- ranville Road)spoke in support ofthe Kissacks'McDonald's application,reminding the Commission that the Kissacks would be neighbors,not just owners,

and that they have a good record ofgiving back to the communities in which they do business.

DEBBIE FARRAR ofthe Granville Athletic Boosters,also spoke on behalf ofthe Kissacks to let

Commission members know that they have contributed a great deal to the Granville Schools. Ms.

Farrar also noted that Granville needs additions to the tax bas>on the commercial property designated on the Master Plan,and that the Kissacks would b g"ood business neighbors."

New Business:

Aladdin Restaurant, 120 East Broadway -Sidewalk Cafe

Owner Ben Rader has submitted an application for a sidewalk cafe. This apparently does

not need a Zoning Permit,but does need Planning Commission review before being forwarded to Council.

1

Through questioning,Commission determined that the dimensions and placement ofthe

proposed sidewalk cafe were consistent with those ofBrew's and Victoria's,including boundary

plantings and the ability for pedestrians to walk through the area.

MR-SALVAGE MOVED TO GIVE THE REQUEST A POSITIVE

RECOMMENDATION. MR.MYERS SECONDED;THE MOTION WAS APPROVED

UNANIMOUSLY.

Steve Smith,331 Spellman Street -Driveway Approach

Mr. Smith is asking to relocate the driveway approach to his home while Spellman Street

is being rel)uilt. The property falls within the Architectural Review Overlay District.

Commission members determined that no trees would be cut down,the current concrete

apron would be removed,and that the existing fence would be relocated from the new driveway

cut to fill in the old cut.

MR STANSBURY MOVED THAT THE REQUEST BE APPROVED. MR.

SALVAGE SECONDED;THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

Ronald Elliot,232 North Granger Street -Shingle Replacement

MbEI]iot- wants-to-replace roof shingles on the entire house,and has chosen shingles

consistent with other homes in the area. ,The property falls within the Architectural Review

Overlay District.

Mr. Elliot informed Commission members that he had recently purchased the house,that

the roofwas leaking,and that the original shingles are no longer manufactured.

MR. SHULMAN MOVED THAT THE REQUEST BE APPROVED. MR

STANSBURY SECONDED;THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

SuperAmerica

SuperAmerica has submitted Preliminary Plat Plans and a complete Application for

Preliminary Plat Approval in( cluding the required attachments).They have paid the initial fees

required. Revised elevation drawings and responses from the Village traffic engineer were also

conveyed to Commission members.

2

Mr.John Thaxton,representing SuperAmerica,made a two-part presentation: A)the

preliminary plat;and B)the Site Plan for one ofthe 4 lots on the parcel.

A, Preliminary Plat

1. The site is approximately 17 acres,divided into 4 commercial lots and including

approximately 4 acres of"green space"on the south side ofthe plat intended to be

dee(led to the Granville Land Conservancy. SuperAmerica will occupy Lot 1;Lots

2,3,and 4 will be held in reserve. Mr. Thaxton asked approval ofthe Preliminary

Plat,since the Lot 1 development plan was contingent upon such a ruling.

UU

2. Ms. Robertson asked for Citizen Comments:MARYE #E VAN ATTA

commented that the plans to donate land to the Conservancy werev "erynice,"

prompting Mr. Thaxton to inform Commissions members that the Conservancy

portion ofthe plat would be restricted against development.

3. Commission members questioned Mr, Thaxton: a)MR.MYERS wondered

about the placement ofthe road in relation to the feeder canal;Mr. Thaxton replied

that it didn't go that far,referring to Page 2 ofthe plat plan. b)MR.MYERS

asked about the restrictions on the Conservancy land;Mr. Thaxton replied that it is

lnot to be used as a developeable lot,b"ut could be used for retention, a common

area,or a landscaped space. c)MR, MYERS asked about proposed uses for Lot

4;Mr. Thaxton replied none had been determined as yet. d)MR SALVAGE

asked ifthe main exit would line up with the proposed exit for the Bob Evans;Mr.

Thaxton replied that it would, e)MR..SALVAGE asked Joe Hickman ifthe

Granville Fire Department was satisfied with the on-site traffic plan;Mr. Hickman

said he had yet to receive a response from the GFD.

4. Commission members discussed the proposal: MS. ROBERTSON wanted to

be sure that approving the Preliminary Plat would not be construed as approving

the future placement of a business on Lot 4,which is only a half- acre lot. MR.

SHULMAN wondered if'lminimum yards"would apply after the site is broken up,

citing p. 88 ofthe Code which requires 350' offrontage,and noting that none of

the proposed lots would meet that requirement after the split. MR.MYERS felt

the Plat approval would not imply anything in relation to Lot 4, and that any

proposed business for that site would,ofnecessity,have to be small and would

have to come to the Commission for approval. MR. STANSBURY asked Mr.

Hickman ifthe Village would have any control over the private road

SuperAmericaWay)M; r.Hickman said it would not,though Mr. Myers felt there

would be at least a measure of control via the development application. MS.

ROBERTSON wondered ifthe Commission might vote separately on the two

parts ofthe proposal;Mr. Myers felt the application could not be split. A

DECISION ON PART A OF THE PRESENTATION WAS PUT ON HOLD

UNTIL PART B HAD BEEN PRESENTED AS WELL.

3

B. Site Plan

1. Mr.Thaxton went over the site plan in detail: a)there will be a right-in/ rightout

only from Cherry Valley Road,with the main site access coming from

SuperAmerica Way,b)the kerosene pump has been removed. c)the trash

compound has been moved, d)mounding has been added to reduce visibility of

paved areas. e)parking in front ofthe store has been changed to head- in;moving

it to the side or rear is neither functional nor safe, in Mr. Thaxton's opinion. f)the

outside storage area for mulchs/alt has been moved so that it is visible on the lot

itselfbut not from either road. g)the crossover to Lot 2 is now on the plat.

h)there will eventually be a crossover to/from the VanAtta property;

SuperAmerica is reserving the right to discuss any intended usage. Ms.

Montgomery asked about future conditions on location of access points;Mr.

Myers and Mr. Salvage thought it would have to happen in a given spot,though

Mr. Thaxton felt it must be discussed by all parties concerned. Mr. Stansbury

asked about the placement ofthe Bob Evans' access;Mr. Salvage replied that it

had a tentative place,but Commission still had the ability to approve the final.

2. Mr. Thaxton presented the site lighting plan,along with the landscaping design.

He noted a change in how lighting would fall outside the parking lot. Mr. Sllulman

asked ifthe lighting was the same brightness as Wendy's;Mr. Thaxton replied that

Mr. Myers was to have determined this, Ms, Robertson wondered ifthis matter AU should be sent to the Lighting Commfil@Ms.Montgomery responded that the

Lighting Conliponly deals with the Village itself,though it might suggest something for commercial installations. Ms. Robertson suggested Commission

could approve theRending application with the proviso that the lighting go to the

Lighting Comm726. Mr. Salvage noted,with some frustration,that Commission

had before it a formal application with no guidelines about Code status in this

particular matter. Mr. Myers asked if the plan used 60 foot candles under the

canopy;Mr. Thaxton replied that it did,because of safety concerns. Mr. Myers

noted that sucho "verl-ightinga"lso represented advertising. Mr. Thaxton replied

that he had to comply with certain safety standards,though he had nothing in

writing. General discussion followed among Commission members as to a specific

light design,generally-desired lighting levels,and inconsistencies in the coderequired

ratio of 10:1 maximum-to-minimum lighting levels. Ms. Robertson

concluded that the Commission members need to inform themselves more before

being able to render a decision and asked Mr, Hickman ifthe Village had a lighting

expert available. Mr. Hickman said it did not,but that he could take the plans to

an engineer for a recommendation and that Commission could approve the

proposed plan with a condition about the lighting. Mr. Myers suggested the

Commission refer the lighting matter to the Village engineers B( yrd B&ull)a,nd

also get information on lighting levels at other gas stations and at Wendy's. THIS

WAS AGREED TO,WITH A REPORT EXPECTED AT THE NEXT

MEETING. Mr. Myers then suggested Commission look at the rest ofthe

4

application and agree to reconsider the lighting at a later date. Mr. Thaxton

agreed.

3. Mr. Thaxton presented the landscaping plan. Mr. Hickman noted that it had

been submitted to Tree & Landscape;their lack of a response is assumed to be a

tacit approval ofthe plan. Mr. Myers questioned the outdoor storage of

mulchs/alt,pursuant to Section 1171.03, in which such use is to be d"iscouraged."

He also suggested consolidating the low plantings on the mound so they would

look better and provide more of a screen for the outdoor storage. Ms. Robertson

also questioned the need for outdoor storage directly in front ofthe store. Mr.

Thaxton replied that SuperAmerica had taken storage offthe islands,as requested,

but wanted to keep it in front ofthe store.

4. Mr. Hickman reported that the engineers had checked the planned drainage of

the entire plat and were satisfied.

5. Mr. Thaxton showed Commission members renderings oftwo proposed ground

signs,one 35 sq.ft.,one 50 sq.ft. He also proposed backlit letters on the front of

the building,sayingS "uperAmericaM." r. Shulman emphasized that the 50 sq.ft.

combined- business sign should be for all four lots with no increases in size as each

business is added. Commission was generally not in favor ofilluminating the sign

on the building. MS ROBERTSON ASKED THAT MT. THAXTON BRING

PICTURES OF A LIGHTED SIGN TO THE NEXT DISCUSSION OF THE

SITE LIGHTING. COMMISSION ALSO ASKED MR. THAXTON TO

DECREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE MOUNTING STRUCTURE FOR THE

714 GROUND SIGN BY REMOVING FOUR COURSES OF BRICK Vr .

01

6. Commission members discussed the proposal: MS. ROBERTSON reminded

Commission members that,in light ofthe possible appearance of a moratorium on

the November ballot,it might be wise to seek legal advice on the ramifications.

MR.MYERS felt Commission needed to act on the application at hand. MS. k . / €-

ROBERTSON cautioned that CmmniggiSn might face an injunction;MR. l/c, 5

STANSBURY felt that was immaterial to the discussion. MR.HICKMAN

reported that the Village Law Director feels the moratorium is " speculative" and

that Commission must act on what is in front ofit. MR.MYERS proposed a

number of conditions for the approval ofthe application: 1)that the 35 sq.ft. sign

be lowered approximately 1 foot;2)that language to restrict development ofthe

Reserve ( Parcel A)be included on the Plat;3)that the Preliminary Plat be adjusted

to end the main road just beyond the proposed access road to Lot 3;4)that action

be suspended on the lighting plan,subject to a resubmission with the

recommendation ofthe Village engineer;5)that outdoor storage be permitted on

the lot only,not in front of the building,with the understanding that Mr. ·Thaxton

will consult with the SuperAmerica operations division and report back at the next

5

meeting;6)that landscaping be massed to screen the outdoor storage;7)that

Commission examine pictures ofthe building sign at their next meeting;8)that the

Land Conservancy gift be shown on the Final Plat as u"nderstooda"n;d 9)that

Commission retain authorization to place the access road to the south. After some

discussion,MR-MYERS MOVED THAT COMMISSION APPROVE THE

APPLICATION,INCLUDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE SITE

PLAN,BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1)THAT OUTDOOR

STORAGE BE ALLOWED ON THE LOT ONLY,NOT IN FRONT OF THE

BUILDING;2)THAT ACTION ON THE LIGHTING PLAN WOULD NOT BE

TAKEN UNTIL PLAN IS RESUBMITTED WITH THE RECOMMENDATION

OF THE VILLAGE ENGINEER;3)THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BE

ADJUSTED TO END THE ROAD JUST BEYOND ACCESS ROAD TO LOT

3;4)THAT LANGUAGE TO RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT OF RESERVE

PARCEL A BE INCLUDED ON THE PLAT;5)THAT THE 35 SQ.FT. SIGN

BE LOWERED BY ONE FOOT;6)THAT LANDSCAPING BE MASSED TO

SCREEN OUTDOOR STORAGE;7)THAT COMMISSION RETAIN

AUTHORITY TO PLACE THE ACCESS ROAD TO THE SOUTH;and 8)

THAT COMMISSION EXAMINE PICTURES OF A BUILDING SIGN AT

THEIR NEXT MEETING BEFORE RENDERING A DECISION ON

WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE LIT, MR, SALVAGE SECONDED THE

MOTION;IT WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Myers made a final

comment,offering his compliments to Mr. Thaxton and his team,saying that this

building has come farther along than any application"Commission has reviewed.

Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter-Day Saints,2486 Newark-Granville Road -Work Session

Mr. Larry Everhard ofGPD Associates,engineers for the church,discussed a proposed lot

split along with proposed improvements to the Church and parking lot. Mr. Everhard reported

that tile church had purchased the land to the east and south of their current property and wished

to redraw their site to add 1.4 acres ofPUD land in an '1"shape to their current east and south

lot lines. Mr. Kevin Rawlinson,also of GPD Associates,noted that the land to be added to the

church property would be changed from PUD zoning to the current church zoning. Mr. Everhard

went on to explain that the church intended to improve and add to the detention pond routed to

all existing storm sewer on Westgate Drive. The church is planning to construct the continuation

b ofthe drainage from Westgate Drive S.R. 16 (approximately 500 feet).Mr. Rawlinson has

already met with the city engineer to discuss the project, Mr, Shulman asked about easements,

and Mr. Rawlinson replied that the city already has all but one small piece ofthe easement

necessary for the new section. Ms. Montgomery stated that the church's offer to construct the

balance ofthe storm line was most generous. COMMISSION GAVE ITS APPROVAL TO THE

PROPOSAL. The Church will come before the Commission formally on August 19, 1996.

6

Don and Laurie Kissack,McDonald's -Work Session

McI) onald's Don and Laurie Kissack presented their plans for a McDonald's restaurant to

be located at Cherry Valley Road and South Galway Drive,emphasizing that they will be owneroperators

ofthis restaurant and p' artners with the communityD."isplaying renderings oftheir

proposed site plan and building elevations,they noted that the site,a 1.285-acre plat, fronts on

Galway Drive,with a 55' setback from Galway and a 103' setback from Cherry Valley Road.

There is a 36h"i-gh landscaped berm between Cherry Valley Road and the east parking area,and

the site has 65%coverage,with pedestrian and bicycle access. Site lighting was reviewed. The

building finish will be brick;finished height will be 26'.They will request a variance for a 7'- high,

ground-mounted,illuminated 'McDonald's"sign. They also emphasized that they will be willing

to contribute to any necessary intersection improvements.

Ms. Robertson asked for Citizen Comments: TOM HARVEY (Burg Street)spoke in

support of'the Kissacks,urging Commission not to keepp "ushing the envelopew" ith prospective

developers i.(e.,te l"l them what you want and stick to it."M)A;TT McGOWAN S( pellman

Street)asked about the design ofthe McDonald's at Muirfield n(o one knew the answera);nd

JACK BURRISS expressed concern about the way the driveway crossed the pede rian area in

front ofthe enclosed playground and suggested a stop sign.

The Commission then questioned theKisssarM*R„STANSBURY felt there were too

many signs,though he did cite p. 130,section89.02a(nd stated that the sign regulations were unclear. MR SHULMAN said that total maximum signage should not exceed 24 sq.ft.,and that /

businesses were allowed two sign each e ( 6*iuding·them- entrpreviewb-oardw- iIich is not 7 / gm_thes-tfeet}M: R. STANSBURY red6Wmended that all the M" 's"on the sides of the ---

buildings be removed. Mrs. Kissack noted the design ofthe building was such that the building

own the building)said it had. In response to a question about parking,Mr. Kissack said they had

alone would not s"ayM" cDonald's;Mr. Stansbury felt there would be other signs. MEL

SHULMAN asked ifthe lot size had been reduced;a representative from McDonald's (who will

given up a curb cut on Cherry Valley Road;Mrs. Kissack said emphatically they d"o not want 804/ uwshinagt Wsoemnedbyr'sichkacosm.Me"rRtrimSHinUmLMorAeNplascuegsg.esMteRd.mMoYreEvReSrtitchaolulignhetstohne tbhueilbdiunigldhinag,dpe ta"rkheanpsaby

giant leap"but felt it was still pretty mixed in terms of style and especially objected to the

ganged"windows. He felt the 'M's"were okay on the two large gables but should be eliminated

Yi

earthberms screentheparking. MS.MONTGOMERY also agreed,notingthat tryingto move

from the smaller gables. MR SALVAGE felt the site plan was acceptable,with parking on the

Cherry Valley Road e(ast)side ofthe buildinRg. S.T*A[NSBURY agreed,as long as mounded

all the parking to the west side would create problems with the drive- thru and the main

entrancee/xit. MR SALVAGE confirmed that any stacking,either entering or leaving,would be off of Cherry Valley Road.

Adjournment: 11:30 p.m.

GPC Minutes 7/15/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 15, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Montgomery,Lyn Robertson,Richard Salvage,Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury

Members Absent: Keith Myers

Also Present: Doug Tailford,Jr.,Village Planner,and Joe Hickman, Assistant Village Manager

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden S( entinel)P,at Reid M( urphy Group)J,im Robeson J(obes

Henderson)J,eff Kobunski K(obunski Building)B,ob Pfau 1(21 W.Maple)P,at Winters,Gwen

Williams,Bernard Goodin

Minutes of June 10. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES;MR„.SHULMAN

SECONDED AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS PRESENTED.

Minutes of July 1. Page 2, change fIrst line to "Joe Spear explained that over the years the

mansion has been temodeled. U..n"der Public Comments, change Phil Heckelman to Bill

Heckelman. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES, MR. STANSBURY

SECONDED AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS CORRECTED.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

Granville School System,248 New Burg Street -Sign

The school system is requesting a blue and white identification sign,25' from the

Pavement at the high school,which technically falls under Section 1189.04,Exemptions,of the

sign ordinance. They are requesting approval of the 48 sq,ft ground sign,which is 5' in height,

and internally lit. No one from the school was present to answer questions.

Ms. Montgomery was concerned about the size of the sign,which would be much larger

than the one at the middle school.

MR SALVAGE MOVED THAT GPC RECOMMENDS THAT THE SCHOOL (1)

ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE SIGN,2 ()THAT THEY COORDINATE

LOCATION OF SIGN WITH THE VILLAGE STREET DIRECTOR,AND ( 3)THAT THEY

MINIMIZE INTENSITY OF THE INTERNAL ILLUMINATION. MR. SHULMAN

SECONDED,AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Shulman would prefer that just the letters glow,not the entire sign.

The Murphy Group,The Glen at Erinwood -Sign r

The Murphy Group wishes to install a 2.3 sq.ft. subdivision sign at the intersection of

Longford Drive and Jones Road,which will match existing sign at North Galway and Newark-

Granville Road. It is a dark blue wooden sign with blue letters on a white post and arm. MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Brad Pfau, 121 West Maple

The applicant wishes to install a front porch railing and a brick patio and steps leading to

the patio in the back yard. MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;

MR. SHULMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bernard and Colette Goodin,401 N. Pearl

The owners wish to add a 200 sq.ft. wood porch to the east side of the house,matching

color of house. The porch,which cannot be seen from the street,will be supported by 4x45 with

shrubs underneath. No trees will need to be cut down.

MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR. SALVAGE

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

John and Julie Strohmeyer,201 North Pearl

The owners altered the previously rejected plans by lining up the fence with the house,

and they have proposed an arbor with lattice. The picket fence is to be 42"high white-painted

cedar. Mr. Shulman thought that eight 4x6 beams 15' long will be quite heavy. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE FENCE

BEING NOT MORE THAN 42"HIGH. MR. SHULMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Conceptual Plan -Hersam Property,West Broadway

Jeff Kobunski presented a conceptual plan for four properties to be built into the hillside.

The hill was a concern for the GPC,as well as driveway access and setbacks. The setback

needs to be 50' minimum in TCOD without having to appear before BZBA. Mr. Kobunsky believes that no trees in the first 50' must be removed. Because of their location in the TCOD,

plans for each individual house must be approved when they are ready and must include tree removal. Mr. Shulman questioned whether Lot 2 on the plan was buildable. Mr. Stansbury is concerned about a driveway up thelsteep Gast slope,and Mr. Kobunski feels this is manageable.

Neighbor Pat Winter was concerned about safety on the drive entering from the east

behind the house and drainage problems following a rainstorm. Mr. Kobunski said that they are not planning to use the back driveway except to service Lot No. 1.

In summary,GPC is generally reseptive to the location of the houses but had 61 k ./«ok«e reservations Mr Shulman stated that he will has some questions when the actual plans come in, regarding house placement,tree-removal,and placement of utilities to minimize tree- removal.

2

3

Mr. Salvage would like to see a lot of the steepness of the driveway reduced,and recommended

that an architect take a look at this. The side setback needs to be 14'.Mr. Shulman suggested work session, a preceded by site inspection,when individual plans come in.

Announcements:

Ms. Robertson offered a formal resolution to Mr. Tailford on his departure to be Zoning

Administrator with the City of Gahanna:

We the members of Granville Planning Commission thank you for the

many years of hard work and dedication that you brought to our town of

Granville and wish you well in the future.

Mr. Tailford responded: " I will miss working with all of you and I am leaving a job I

truly love,but this is a move I have to make."

Adjournment: 8:30 p.m.

Next Meetings: August 5 and 19, Betty will be absent on the 5th,but Sandy Ellinger has agreed to take minutes.

GPC Minutes 7/1/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 1, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Shulman, Maxine Montgomery,Keith Myers,Lyn Robertson,Richard Salvage,Marc Gary Stansbury

Members Absent:none

Also Present: Doug Tailford,Jr.,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden S( entinel.Neil Andrew 2(36 W. Elm)M. ary Fellabaum 3(10 W. Elm)G,eorge Brezima 3(38 ProspectS),usan Diduk 3(35 N. Granger)J,im Gimieson LongabergerB), ill M&ixie Heckelman 1(690 Newark Road)C,arl Wilkenfeld 3(17 W. Elm), HCuognhsteasnce Barsky 2(21 E. Elm)J,ames Harf 1(20 WildwoodK),. Thomas Hughes M&ary

Minutes of June 10: Approval of minutes is postponed until the next meeting.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

Woeste Real Estate.142 East Broadway -Sign

The sign they are seeking approval for is already up, The colors have been changed.

MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Enterprises, 136 North Prospect -Sign

The applicant wishes to install an 8 sq.ft. window sign for Granvilla Pizza and Tavern to replace the old sign. The colors are burgundy and cream; the old sign was silver. He will need a val-iance for total sign area for the building and the number of signs for his business,for there

are two neon signs in addition to the new one. The applicant explained that there are two businesses here,the pizza shop and the tavem,allowing more signage. He will replace the awning,sans letters.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR SIGN AS RE- PQRUOEVSETDE.D;MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APRodney

and Lucinda Wilkens,341 N. Granger -Fence

Susan Diduk spoke for the Wilkens,who could not be present. She explained that she lives next door and the boys next door play a lot of basketball. The fence is to protect Ms. Diduk from interference of the boys onto her garden, The fence will be 6' high and 24' long and would start 65' from the street. The fence will be stained a natural color and would be visible

bfreomin tlihneestreet on one side. It will be right on the property line,as the garage is now,and will with the garage.

MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION. MR. SHULMAN

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Public Hearing: ;2 David Longaberger,537 Jones Road

Joe Spear explained thatr Longaberger wishes to maintain by continuing the existing fencing to a tree-lined 22' wide driveway up through the center of the polo field, bordered by a pair of guardhouses of arching stone about 250' from the road with

piers rising to the arch. He stated that the current entrance tends to get lost on Jones Road, which they plan to use as a service entrance. The front parcel of the property is subject to the

PUD development plan review,and the plan is also subject to TCOD criteria.

Public Comments:

Mary Fellabaum had understood that the polo field would remain and regrets its demise.

Carl Wilkenfeld reminded the group that the Master Plan limited curb cuts onto Newark-

Granville Road. He also was concerned with lighting and the additional traffic on the road. Constance Barsky does not feel that the plan adheres to the master plan,which was culmination of a great deal of community input. Also,historically the building was built in the

205 and the service entrance has a quiet subtlety, The type of design is appropriate for the uilding,and she felt that the character and access to the building should not be changed. pplicanRtitil Heckelman and his wife,who would be the neighbors most affected,did not feel the quite attraicsticvhea.nging the mansion itself,and they felt that having a central entrance would be

Neil Andrew was concerned with traffic and stacking on the road without a turn-left lane.

Susan Diduk is a jogger in the area and feels there is a great deal of traffic there now and

Mr. Longaberger's parties would bring in a great deal more traffic.

GPC Comments:

Mr. Shulman was concerned with the guardhouse and fencing and felt it was in opposition to the TCOD. He thought a solid line of trees would run counter to the greenspace recommendations of the master plan and look massive. Mr. Tailford stated that once beyond the 50' mark,an applicant can plant trees as he/ she wishes.

In answer to Ms. Montgomery's question,Mr. Tailford stated that the roadway to the

west belongs to Mr. Kent. She was informed that the gatehouses would be a little larger than the

one on Jones Road,and the roadway is 4'wider.

Mr. Stansbury recognizes that a person should be allowed to do what he wishes on his

own property,but it's always been an open view and this would detract from the appearance and even hide the mansion. He would prefer to eliminate the structures out front and would not like

to see the polo field dissected in the center.

Mr. Myers has no problem with the driveway per se,but the design and compatibility of

the gateway in the TCOD is a real problem for him.

Mr. Salvage feels the proposed entryway is appropriate for the mansion and would like to

see more trees planted. He feels the mansion is a unique place and merits some unique aspects. he does not think the TCOD was adopted to prevent a nice entranceway,nor that we are taking away any greenspace.

Ms. Robertson thinks more trees and the gate would make the mansion less visible and

feels it does not fit in with the TCOD nor the spirit of preserving the rural character of the home.

1

2

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED.

MR STANSBURY SECONDED,AND THE MOTION TO WAS DEFEATED BY A VOTE OF 4 1 M( r.t e*s.bury).Mr. Myers will write a statement summarizing the discussion. Aro>*-

Neil and Dixie Andrew,236 West Elm

Mr. Andrew wishes to amend his application that was approved with conditions by GPC

at the last meeting in view of BZBA's approval of setback variance.

To rescind the previous motion, MR, SALVAGE MOVED THAT WE RECONSIDER

THE APPLICATION THAT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY. MR. SHULMAN

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

GPC will reconsider both (1)setback requirements and ( 2)height of the fence.

1)Mr. Myers reminded the group that Mr. Andrew and Mr. McCluskey agreed to

compromise at the last GPC meeting by having the fence one foot inside the lot line,but BZBA

approved the fence on the line. Mr. Andrew wants the fence and building sited as BZBA approved it and as originally applied for.

2)Mr. Andrew wishes to modify plans for the first section ca.8' long of fence to be 42" rather than 6' on the west with pillar height 66".A stairstep will increase height to 60"with 66" pillars, then 69"height with 72"pillars. This would create a nice balance and transition,he stated. Ms. Montgomery reported that Mr. McClusky told her he would prefer moving the fence

one foot inside and the fence at 42"high on the north side,which would offer more open space. fMenrc.eAndrew stated that if GPC agrees to stairstep the fence,he is willing to move the garage and in one foot.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED

WITH AMENDED WALL HEIGHT SUBJECT TO STAIRSTEP CONDITIONS: 1( )HEIGHT OF WEST WALL FROM CHERRY STREET BE 42"WITH 51"COLUMNS;2 ()NEXT STEP TSOECBOEN6D0E"DW,ITH 66"COLUMNS;3 ()THEN 69"WITH 72"COLUMNS. MR. STANSBURY AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Sessions

A. Exterior Lighting Guidelines, The proposed guidelines would exempt residential

darreaaftse.d.Members suggested a few changes,and Mr, Tailford will update the guidelines he

MR.MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE GUIDELINES WITH CHANGES.MR. STANSBURY SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

B. Request for Prooosals. A few changes were made in the establishment of a Design Review Ordinance. The group had made a formal recommendation earlier and now found Mr. Tailford's draft appropriate. It will be sent to Village Council for final approval.

Adjournment: 9.30 p.m.

Next Meetings: July 15 and August 5

GPC Minutes 6/10/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 10, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Shulman, Montgomery,Keith Myers,Lyn Robertson.Richard Salvage,Marc Gary Stansbury

Members Absent:none

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Jr.,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden ( Sentinel)and about 53 names on attached sheets.

Minutes of May 20: Page 2, under Page SDI,No.2,add dioining before m" otel lot."Page 3, Under Public Comments,change Patty M" arkham"to Harklau. Page 4,Mr. Myers'paragraph, changes are still being awaited. Next paragraph change "lights"to signs. Under V.,change title

to F"inal Questions by Applicant. "Under VI, line 2: Add He argued that.w.e.should adopt them,L.in.e. 5,add She argued that we are tryingP.a.g,e.5,No. 7 under SuperAmerica, change to other users rather than a"nother user,"MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APRIL 8 MINUTES:MR. MYERS SECONDED AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS CORRECTED.

Citizens Comments:

Omar Whisman took exception to Mr. Tailford's comments in the paper regarding

Fackler's this week,but Mr. Tailford stated he never made those comments.

Jurgen Pape stated that Granville is a pedestrian community and he objects to potential

traffico-riented drivet-hrough businesses. He thinks McDonald's should be located on the other side of the highway,where it originally was planned. He stated that the Master Plan did not suggest a business complex like the one Mr. Fackler is planning,

Ms. Griesse hoped Granville would stay with the Master Plan.

Mr. Dagenhart voiced his objection of any additional businesses until after the current traffic problems are solved.

Mr. Wilkenfeld wondered why we are following the same old model of granting our land

stougoguetsstisdefinbdusiningesses. The Rt.16C/ herry Valley corner is growing too commercial and he new solutions which serve us all as human beings and as a community. He objected to bringing in low-wage-paying jobs which no one wants.

New Business:

Northtowne Properties, South Galway -Lot Split

Northtowne is requesting to split off a 1.8-acre parcel from the 8.865-acre parcel on the southeast corner ofNewarkG- ranville Road and South Galway, The lot meets all requirements for SBD. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mary Thurlow-Collen, 332 West Elm -Fence

The applicant wishes to install a 4"white picket fence in the backyard. MR. SALVAGIE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS

MOVED TO UNANIMOUSAPLYPROVE APPLICATION;MR, MYERS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS APPROVED.

Neil and Dixie Andrew,236 West Elm

The owners wish to construct a twos-tory carriage house garage with turnabout and 6' brick wall and courtyard for privacy. Lot coverage variance approved by BZBA is 72.3%He. will replace existing brick sidewalk, The wall along Cherry Street is limited to 42"a,nd the serpentine 6' fence will rise to 7' at the columnar points. Mr. Andrew explained that they have planned the architecture to fit in with the village ordinances. He showed a picture of the concrete pavement with exposed pavers, He said that others in the neighborhood have 6' fences and this would not be overwhelming. He stated that a 4' fence in front would not balance with the remaining 6' fencing. Richard Downs,contractor,explained that they are seeking a German Village courtyard appearance.

Ms. Robertson asked how the northside neighbors felt about the project,and Mr. McCluskey reported that the big problem was with the design of the first plans,and the present compromise ofmoving the structure back farther will allow Mr. Andrew to have his garage and the McCluskeys to have more light. The McCluskeys are not happy with the plans, however, especially the 6' fence on the property line. Mr.Myers objected to any fence right on the property line and suggested moving the wall and garage one foot closer to the house.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. THAT THE PROPOSED CARRIAGE HOUSE BE MOVED SO THAT THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IS ONE FOOT.

2. THAT THE WALL ALSO BE MOVED SO THAT THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM PROPERTY LINE IS ONE FOOT.

3. THAT THE BRICK WALL ON THE WEST AND NORTH PROPERTY LINES BY

DROPPED TO 42"WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE WALL EAST OF THE PROPOSED CARRIAGE HOUSE,WHICH WOULD BE PERMITTED TO BE 6'. 4. THAT THE COLUMN HEIGHT BE ADJUSTED PROPORTIONATELY.

MR SALVAGE SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session -McDonald's

Ray Riska and the architect are here tonight to seek GPC input on the site plan only. A conditional use permit is required for the proposed restaurant. They have increased the landscaping since the last site plans so that the building could be farther back from the road. Mr. Riska explained that they changed the original site location across the highway because demographic analysis suggested servicing Granville rather than drive-by traffic on Rt. 16.

Ouestions by GPC:

Mr. Stansbury asked the distance from Cherry Valley, and it was stated to be 50' from the right of way with another 20' of grass.

Mr. Myers felt that the presentation should include the entire package,not just the footprint. He also suggested lining up all buildings on Cherry Valley Road, in which case the front of McDonald's should be along C.V. rather than Galway. Others agreed with him.

2

Mr. Shulman suggested moving the parking toward the back in the greenspace. He also

wanted the plans to show pedestrian walkways and access to the bikepath.

Mr. Salvage would prefer that McDonald's obtain a conditional use permit from BZBA

before GPC acts. Mr. Tailford weighs reminded the group that part of the conditional use consideration heavily on approval of the site plan by GPC,especially ingress and egress.

Ms. Montgomery asked about a service road,and Mr. Tailford explained that there

should be one on Galway Drive.

Citizens Comments:

Fleur Metzger asked about the source of traffic visiting McDonald's, and Mr. Riska stated

that they are anticipating Granville residents traveling Newark-Granville Road to be the biggest

Rcut.s1to6m. er base. Wendy's,he stated, gets Rt.16 traffic,but McDonald's would not be visible from

Mr. McCluskey asked whether there is a landscape plan,and Mr. Riska stated that John Klauder is working on it.

Mr. Wilkenfeld objected to the piecemeal plans for this restaurant as well as other businesses with its industrial patchwork of parking lots with a building in the middle. Why not look at the big picture and cluster the buildings to allow for community gathering. He argued that McDonald's would not be servicing Granville.

Mr. Turner expressed concerns about traffic at the busy intersection and would not like to

see a ten-lane highway there.

Les Sheppard's concern is with the large playplace in front of McDonald's, and Mr. Riska said it's all blended together.

Ms. Griesse added that they are attempting to attract Granville kids,but we already have

our own playground and do not need another one.

Mary Kay Roberts expressed her objection to the potential businesses across the street from her home.

There are some items of unfinished business with McDonald's; please see Mr. Tailford's memo of June 5 to GPC members. }

Certified Oil Company

John Woods from Certified explained that the facility needs to be upgraded by 1998, according to the EPA,and they want to design a new brick building and include a convenience

store,which will require a conditional use permit. The problem is with ingress and egress on South Main and the main entranceway,which Certified has an easement to use. They have reduced access by one curbcut in the revised plans and moved the entrance to the gas station in order to ease congestion of traffic.

Mr. Myers stated that there seems to be no shortage of convenience stores nearby,and Mr. Woods argued that sale of gasoline is not sufFicient to maintain the business.

3

Other unfinished issues are enumerated in Mr. Tailford's memo of June 5 to GPC. }

Citizens Comments:

Mr. McCluskey asked about the hours of operation and was informed that they would be 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. most days.

Leda Ross spoke about the traffic flow at the IGA,saying it looks as though Certified is

shifting their problem onto the common driveway, and the situation would be more difficult with a curve in the drive.

Greg Ross asked about documentation showing traffic accidents,for he knew of Mrs. Thiele described none. one car sliding down the steep slope after the driver was blinded by the sun.

Mr. Vance asked about the size of the building. It would be about 30'x15'.

Mary Fellabaum asked whether Certified has done a survey as to how badly Granville

needs another carryout. Mr. Woods replied that all gas stations now have convenience stores.

George Fackler -SW Corner Cherry Valley and Newark-Granville Roads

Mr. Fackler has listened to what the citizens desire on the five-acre tract and has come up with a unique oneb-uilding complex containing several businesses,utilizing a style already in place in the neighborhood. Conditional uses will be required.

Phil Wince further described the plan which reflects a New England type architecture,

with sidewalks,landscaping shielding the parking area,and bank and convenience center with drivet-hrough service. They have put the building in front of the lot,facing the parking toward the rear. There would be pedestal

lighting,and the building would have dark brown shingles,a low hip roof,synthetic stone, clapboard siding,bay windows. For signage they would need a groundm- ounted sign and individual signs at each business. Hours of operation would be minimal.

GPC members were generally pleased with the design and attention to the zoning code and had several questions:

Mr. Stansbury asked about the traffic flow through the drive-throughs,which are at the tehnoduoghf tthe building. He also suggested that a service road would be helpful,and Mr. Shulman a service road could be made a stipulation because it would be on Murphy property.

Mr. Myers had concerns about the sidewalks,and Mr. Wince stated that they would be connected to public sidewalks. Mr. Myers stated that any future businesses next door would need to be connected.

Mr. Shulman expressed a preference to line up access to the office park.

Mr. Salvage asked about righti-n,righto-ut access restrictions. Mr. Tailford had restricted this on Newark- Granville Road because of the lack of a center turn lane. Cherry

i

4

Valley Road would permit the left turn. S{ee Mr. Tailford's memo of June 5 for further detail. }

Citizens comments were invited:

Mr. Vance was opposed to a third lane. He also questioned whether the sidewalks would lead people around the building to the entrance,and Mr. Wince said that sidewalks would go around but that there would be no rear entrance.

Mr. McCluskey stated his hope that the lighting would be subdued and was informed that light would be down-looking and short so that no light leaves the property.

Mr. Wilkenfeld appreciated the drawings but was concerned about how they were anchoring this. He questioned the need for a realty office unless they are bringing out a downtown Granville real estate office. He wondered about the value of a bank and office space because that does not bring people to the restaurant. If there was a bookstore there,Mr. Wilkenfeld would go there every week.

Mr.Ollie(fr?om) Erinwood stated that this is the best plan they have seen,and W" e are foonrthhies rpiglahntst.rack."Lois Rose and Bill Diaz(a?gre)ed. Dean Markle commended Mr. Fackler

Matt McGowan asked about the liquor permit and Mr. Fackler said they do not plan to use this as a night club.

Announcements:

Mr. Tailford would like to get a standards and design review moving forward. GPC would do design review and a committee would propose a new ordinance under the zoning code. GPC members agreed that such a committee would be helpful in their deliberations,and it would make Mr. Tailford's job easier, An outside expert could be sought. Mr. Tailford suggested submitting a request to Village Council for RFP. A steering committee would include representatives from other groups in town.

MR. MYERS MOVED THAT THE GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

HEREBY REQUESTS THAT THE VILLAGE COUNCIL CONSIDER THE HIRING OF A CONSULTANT TO ASSIST GPC IN DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS FOR THE VILLAGE. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 10:35 p.m.

Next Meetings: July 1 and July 15

GPC Minutes 5/20/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 20, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Montgomery,Keith Myers,Lyn Robertson,Richard Salvage,Marc

Shulman,Gary Stansbury

Members Absent:

Also Present: Doug Tailford,Jr.,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden S( entinel)R, obert D&orothy Essman 1(404 Cherry Valley),

Don Contini 3(15 N. Pearl)R,obert Abel,Mark Sweetman,Jeffrey Brown,John Thaxton

SuperAmericaL),arry Wills,Dan Havener B(ob Evans)G, lenn Hardy G( ranville)C,harles

West W( oolpert)R,on Cook 1(137 Cherry Valley)J,ohn Strohmeyer 2(01 N. Pearl)B, arbara &

Dick Lucier 2(16 S. Pearl)P,atty Markham W( . Broadway)J,oAnn Morey 3(26 E. College)J,im Suzy Marr 2(79 Potters Lane)B,ob Carlson 1(16 Shannon Lane)D,ean Markle V(illage

Green)D,an Bellman

Minutes of May 6 Bottom of Page 3, change 48'to 48".MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO

APPROVE APRIL 8 MINUTES; MR. STANSBURY SECONDED AND MINUTES WERE

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

Barbara and Richard Lucier,216 South Pearl

The Luciers wish to remodel an old barn and turn it into a two-car garage,adding 3' to

west side. A deck on rear of house will be replaced with small porch and brick patio. They will

install substantial landscaping with trellises. MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;

MR. STANSBIJRY SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

John and Julie Strohmeyer,201 West Pearl

The owners wish to install a 48"white colonial fence on south and east sides of the

property. Mr. Shulman indicated that other fences in the area have an established setback and

this fence should be in line with the house. Mr. Strohmeyer indicated that he wanted to maximize the space as much as possible to allow more room for his children to play,and that it

would not look balanced in line with the house. He said the proposed fence would be 3' from the sidewalk but could be flush with the side of the porch,4-5' from sidewalk. Ms. Robertson expressed concern about visibility and safety for cars, and members agreed this would not be a problem. Mr. Stansbury agreed that it would look better lined up with the house but recognized

that a lot of play space would be lost. Mr. Shulman would rather have a 42"fence if it is lined

up with the porch.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE FENCE

HEIGHT REDUCED TO 42"AND THE FENCE BEING LINED UP WITH THE FRONT

EDGE OF THE PORCH. MR STANSBURY SECONDED,AND THE VOTE WAS DEFEATED TWO (Shulman,Stansbury)TO ONE ( Salvage).

Ms. Robertson told him that if he still wants the fence as in original application,he will

need to submit further information with exact drawings,with porch, and fence location. It

C

would be helpful to review where other fences are in that area. Mr. Strohmeyer will meet with

Mr. Tailford again.

Gran-Rental Station,113 N. Prospect Street

The owners are requesting maroon awnings above window and door and replacing tin

siding with off-white vertical siding. He wants to print a street address on the vertical drop of

the awning,which is considered an address,rather than a sign.

MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Don Contini,444 East Broadway

Mr. Contini wishes to replace original siding with vinyl because original siding is not

repairable. He showed sample of heavy gauge siding and indicated that all trim is wood and will

look like the original. He also wishes to install a bay window in the rear of the house and

replace shed roof with an arbor roof over the back porch.

MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR. STANSBURY SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Athletic Boosters,Granville High School,New Burg St.

The Boosters are seeking final approval on development for the stadium,and Mr. Myers,

on behalf of the Boosters, explained the plan for fence and lighting. The main change from the

last plan is that the field has been moved back closer to the hillside and a new entry plaza has

been designed. The green vinyl fence has been pulled back to allow more landscaping.

Mr. Salvage stated that based on the need to expedite this process,some of the work has

been started,although the rain forced postponement of tree planting. The four light poles will be

70' tall with 36 lights on each. Other lighting is needed at the concession stand. MR SHULMAN MOVED TO ACCEPT APPLICATION SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE

VILLAGE ENGINEERS AND ANY OTHER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT NEED

TO BE FOLLOWED. MR.STANSBURY SECONDED,AND IT WAS APPROVED WITH

ABSTENTION OF MR.MYERS,WHO WORKED ON THE PROJECT.

Public Hearing -Bob Evans

Bob Evans Farms have officially submitted their proposal for restaurant and a proposed

motel. Ms. Robertson explained the new five-step procedures to be followed for hearings.

L Introduction by Staff.Mr. Tailford presented the proposal for the property,detailing

location,frontage,seating,future drive,lighting,signage,landscaping,and design.etc.

IL Applicant Presentation. Mr. Havener updated the group on plans,specifically referring to Mr. Tailford's memo of May 15, 1996. 0/*

motel loPtahgaesSaDn 1o.wNnoe.r.2.he explained that the connection road will be worked out when th A+ - - j-

Page5 .(No. 2.The height of the lights is 24' and they will be total cuto-ff lights.

No. 3. Site lighting along Cherry Valley was not addressed earlier and was never a design concern,so it needs to be looked at.

No. 4. Lighting uniformity can be worked out with the village.

Page A4 and AS. No. 2. Fluorescent light under awning will be removed.

2

Page A4 and AS.No. 3. Broken keyhole pediment will remain.

Page A4 and AS,No. 4. Architecture still has not been changed as requested by GPC. The Bob Evans supervisors have allowed as much alteration of style as possible. Page A.4 and AS.No. 5. All but three spotlights have been removed, retaining the three in the front.

General Comments. No. 1. There will not be a monument sign,only two building signs.

No. 2. Items still pending on Mark Zarbaugh's memo of May 10 are as follows:

Curb and gutter detail is OK,but location of underdrain needs to be noted on the plan.

Conduit for future street lighting does not need to be addressed at this point. Any

lighting along the road is the responsibility of Bob Evans.

Bob Evans has no problem with the village planting trees between curb and sidewalk,but

that is off their property and not their responsibility.

Regarding traffic movements and stacking problems,this may be the case,but Bob Evans

does not know the solution at this point. They need to know what information the GPC wants.

Bob Evans will clarify calculations for street trees on landscape development plan.

Staff Recommendations. Mr. Havener explained they are seeking approval tonight and

hope that further review will not be required.

Letter from Bird and Bull. Mr. Havener cited some remaining concerns: Services will

be provided to a proposed motel site. Fire Department approval is assumed. Easements will be

provided to motel. The entrance is being studied at this time;it is possible that SuperAmerica

and Bob Evans drives will line up.

ITT. Public Comments.

VJ# NU PattyMheam* stated that maintaining a New England style architecture and maintaining

the distinct character of Granville is a good idea. Bob Evans should look at a totally different style. She would encourage landscaping and trees and minimum signage.

Mary Lou VanAtta thinks Bob Evans' building falls in with Granville already. The south

side of Rt. 16 is commercial and would welcome the restaurant.

Dan Bellman thinks Bob Evans would be a welcome member of the community and has

a unique architecture. He likes the brick and muted colors.

Ron Cook agrees with Ms. VanAtta and feels this area is not downtown Granville. They

are seeking drive-by traffic and have had good communication with and been cooperative with

the village. Mr.Cook is in real estate and finds it somewhat difficult to move property because of the stonewalling of the village.

Bob Carlson feels that we are building another Newark around Granville and it will

eventually be a slum. Senior citizens and others will be moving out of Erinwood and it could end up a dead area. Property values would decline.

Dean Markle added that most development occurs along beltways. Commercial

development should be kept around those intersections and reasonable compromises need to be reached. He would not want a McDonald's at the intersection. Other Bob Evans look good.

IV. Questions from the Commission to Bob Evans.

Mr. Tailford stated that the last time the connector road was discussed, it was going to be

set in a location or noted that we would determine where its location should be,but that is not on the plans. It needs to be noted,subject to moving as approved by GPC and users. His other

1 3

4

concerns were:

Standard lights are not adopted yet for the village, Type of lights and heights should be

on the plans.

Tree and Landscape Commission had a question on landscaping near the dumpster.

Automobile stacking can be made a condition upon approval.

Trees in the 6' tree lawn is a requirement by Tree and Landscape Commission but they

believe we do not need trees in that tree lawn because of other trees there;if Bob Evans wishes

trees,they would be required on the plan.

Approval of Fire Department is not customary unless cul-de-sacs are involved.

Mr. Myers stated that they would need variances from GPC for sign sizes and total

signage Parking in front is subject to our discretion,and parking deviations need GPC approval

regarding connection to the south property. Mr. Havener has no problem with adding proposed

curb cuts to the plan. The motel would have violation its own entrance road. The light pole height 14 in 1 of the lighting uniformity, All driveways are going to need conduits. 1./) 0 9 3./ 0(rt

4 \11n>

Mr. Shulman asked whether ig}as were of equal size and internally lit,and the answers were Yes.

Mr. Stansbury asked about a traffic study. This has been done,but SuperAmerica will

require a second look by the village engineer. There cannot be a traffic light there.

Mr. Salvage asked about illumination along the sidewalks. Mr. Tailford stated that the

new standards have not been approved yet but that GPC decided not to have public street lights.

There is a deficiency about what is shown and what's on the proposed list. The last comment on Bird and Bull's memo is still up in the air regarding sewers,and this could be left as a condition

upon approval.

Ms. Montgomery asked about total signage,and the outline of the two signs with the

words B" ob Evans"adds up to 88 sq.ft.,or 44 sq.ft. each. She suggested Bob Evans look at a gray roof. Mr. Havener prefers the red,but in order to get them off the hurdle,they would

change the color and material but not the design.

V. FinalQuestiopnpslic,a*n*t.Mr.Will said they would be willing to change colors

Gburtannovtillteh.e architecture, Route 16 is designated commercial and they wanted to service

VI. GPC Discussion apd Yotq.

8>

U AL/ b,A-N V-- . A *f q.+/

in this Mr.Sage sttethaGPC is overstepping its authority to force architectural standards Mr. Staanresbau.rrhy edisMagarseteerd,Plan suggests that if we want guidelines,we shouldad/iE$th-em,but stating that the Master Plan does say that we should maintain a typical style. Ms. Robertson read from the Master Plan,which recommends commercial at this area but

suggests the commercial style be consistent with a New England townW.*e are trying to uphold the spirit of'the Master Plan,which consists of what the citizens desird@She does not think a brown building with gray roofwill accomplish this goal. Mr. Shulman is concerned about lighting and wonders how this application compares with Wendy's. He also stated that signs should be at a minimum.

Mr. Myers stated that the problem is that Bob Evans wants to maintain its identity but

that Granville wants to maintain its identity also.

Mr. Myers moved that we approve the application for Bob Evans with the following

conditions:

1. That a connection to the site to the south be made.

2. That fluorescent lighting under the canopy be removed.

3. That lighting on the roof be restricted to three lights,as indicated on the presentation,

but shining on the pediment.

4. That approval of village service director is required.

5. That the engineers' comments be addressed by applicant,with approval of staff.

6. That there be no ground sign.

7. That the roof color be changed from red to a more muted color as indicated by

applicant.

Mr. Salvage seconded the motion. The motion was rejected by Roll Call as follows:

Mr. Salvage- yes Mr. Shulman -no

Mr. Myers -yes Mr. Stansbury -no

Ms. Robertson -no

Work Session:

SuperAmerica

John Thaxton presented changes in plans made since our last work session,and a

summary follows:

1. They eliminated the service road.

2. They eliminated the cut-de-sac. 3. They redesigned building to accommodate Granville's hoped-for standards.

4. They have looked again at the "ins and outs."

5. They have improved the landscaping.

6. There would be a 35 sq.ft. monument sign with gas prices at corner of Cherry Valley and Rt. 16.

7. There would be a sign on the back area at the entrance,and it would have room for

*other8u.seTrhS,eSreigwnowuoldulbdebaes5m0asllqs.fitg.nwoitvheratllheusdeorso.r and pattern striping would be on the

canopy.

9. There is more greenspace,and they have beefed up the landscaping along Rt. 16 by

shifting the building.

10. The outdoor storage is limited to 316/, high with shrubbery on top. It would not be visible from the street.

11. There would be neatly stacked storage ( i.e.,cases of pop)in front of the door. 12. Blimpie's would sell merchandise within the store. 13. S/A would give residual land along the creek to the Granville Land Conservancy.

14. The driveway would line up with Bob Evans'.

GPC members stated their concerns.

1. Mr. Myers stated that the overall site plan is better, but the "ins and outs"with Rt. 16

so close might be a problems however,Mr.Dole stated that they have moved it farther south and the location is required for truck maneuverability. 2. Ms. Robertson would prefer the storage of pop, etc.,be inside.

3. Engineers need to look at the traffic plan again.

4. Mr. Shulman does not want the lighting any brighter than Wendy's. Mr. Myers will measure the lighting at Wendy's.

5

1

4.--

6

5. Mr. Tailford stated that there needs to be an interconnecting road or easement

between S/ A and the next door property to the south.

Policy for Drop-off Boxes, Vending Machines and other Outdoor Product Structures

GPC members unanimously approved Mr, Tailford's latest May 1996 draft by way of a motion by Mr. Stansbury, seconded by Mr. Myers.

Adjournment: 10:55 p.m.

Next Meetings: June 10 and June 17

July 1 and July 15

GPC Minutes 5/6/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 6, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Montgomery,Lyn Robertson,Richard Salvage,Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury

Members Absent: Keith Myers

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Jr.,Village Planner

Visitors Present. Scott Rawden S( entinel)A, nne Russell 2(05 S. Prospect)C,. Crais 2(34 W.

Pearl)M, ary Fellabaum 3(10 W. Elm)B, ud D&ebbie Farrar A(thletic Boosters)H,enry Luther

233 E. Broadway)R,obert Burrowes,Max Rogers 3(26 Spellman)J,im Bidigare 1(10 E. Elm),

Jeff Oster 2(26 N. Pearl)W, illiam Anderson J&ames Shenck C(oncepts in Lodging)

Procedural Work Session:

1. Procedures. { Please refer to Keith Myers' memo of May 4, 1996. }

Mr. Stansbury recommended combining Dots 3 and 4 but reserving the right to cut off

comments after a definite period of time. Ms. Robertson would like to limit citizens' comments

to 15 minutes.

GPC does not feel that Dot 7 (further comment from citizens)is necessary.

Re Dot 1, Mr. Tailford is willing to introduce the application,and members would like

him to do this when there is a public hearing and other big applications.

Ms. Robertson thinks Dot 5 is a good idea.

Regarding time limits,the Chair can state initially how much time is allowed. Mr.

Stansbury suggested having the application continued if GPC is not finished. It's hard to decide

how much time is needed in advance. Ms. Robertson asked what would happen is all the agenda

items are not covered,and Mr, Tailford said he would consult Mr, Hurst about this. The consensus

of the group felt they could not set a time limit for a case. Mr. Stansbury thought we could

cut off a work session but not a public hearing. Mr. Tailford stated that public hearings at

Village Council hear citizens' comments then act, but allow no further public comment. Mr.

Salvage thought we should ponder such a procedure. Ms, Robertson thought that one of tile

Chair's duties is to figure out a time frame for the agenda and become more efficient.

2. Change to Application Submission Deadline. Mr. Tailford has spoken to Mr. Hurst

about extending the seven-day deadline to give sufficient time for preparation and notification to

the Sentinel. GPC concluded that twelve days would work better. Nothing will be added to the

agenda that has not been published.

Minutes: April 8: Page 3,Line 10: Add Mr. Salvage indicated that tliis area is not in an

architectural review area and GPC may be overstepping its authority bv trying to impose

architectural styles. He stated that.c..hange."

Under the summary of Bob Evans discussion P(age 3)m, ake the following changes:

5. " Decrease number of parking spaces and add more parking islands/ peninsulas."

6. "sh.ow.n.on the plat;exact location is subject...."

After No. 10, add Bob Evans did agree to eliminate under-awning lighting. They also

acknowledged responsibility for pedestrian lighting cost.

MR STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APRIL 8 MINUTES;MR. SALVAGE

SECONDED AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

April 22: Ms. Robertson asked that all "will be"verbs be changed to "would be"under

McDonald's on page 3.

Top of Page 3 should read, " room. and it would be weltlandscaped. They would have

58 parking spaces. They."

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APRIL 22 MINUTES; MR. STANSBURY

SECONDED,AND THEY WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: Mr. Farrar,from "Moving Together,"

wanted to update GPC on progress on the new stadium at the high school and showed the

landscaping drawing. Inasmuch as the work is scheduled to be done May 17-18, and since the

Tree and Landscape Commission has not approved it, Mr. Salvage suggested that GPC approve

installation provided we get a formal application and provided that the Tree and Landscape

Commission gives its approval, and GPC agreed with this suggestion.

Old Business:

Signage Policy for Drop-off Boxes,Vending Machines,etc.

GPC members discussed Mr, Tailford's draft, and Ms. Robertson suggested adding

something about safety. Ms. Montgomery thought Mr. Tailford should administer these items,

and Mr. Salvage disagrees with the conditions upon lighting.

Ms. Robertson suggested considering these structures as signs.

Under No. 2, delete " next to the main building and located."

Mr. Tailford will prepare a new draft.

Satellite Dish Antennae and Communication Towers...

Mr. Tailford has prepared a draft incorporating changes made necessary by a new

Federal Communications Bill. Mr. Salvage preferred a maximum height of 8' for roof antennae,

but others thought it should not exceed 3'.Mr. Salvage does not want to regulate the smaller, 18"

dishes. Ms. Montgomery will provide input to Village Council on the discussion.

New Business:

Max Rogers,326 Spellman

Mr. Rogers wishes to modify front awning to better match existing roof lines and

substitute two round wood pillars in place of the steel ones there currently. They will add

window boxes, and the improvement will be more aesthetically pleasing. The white posts will

2

match the window trim.

MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Don and Anna Russell,205 S. Prospect

The Russells wish to build a 9"high stacked limestone retaining wall in the front yard to

contain a landscaping area.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT AN APPLICATION IS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS

INSTANCE;MR. STANSBURY SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

No fee is necessary)

Curtis Real Estate, 110 East Elm

The business wishes to install a gray sign with black letters in the existing sign frame

provided for the office building on the northeast corner of South Main and East Elm. It will be

consistent with the other signs and variances that were granted for that location.

MR STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Rob and Brooke Struthers, 214 South Cherry

The owners wish to replace the slate on front roof of house with architecturally built up

shingles like the shingles on the back part of the house. It is very expensive to replace slate, and

the roof will not be visible except on the dormer window.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR. STANSBURY SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Henry and Lawanna Luther, 233 East Broadway

The Luthers wish to install a 6'wood stockade fence in the left back yard for privacy. It

will not be very visible from the street and will be landscaped.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR. STANSBURY SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Monomoy House,231 West Broadway

Denison wishes to receive approval for the four window boxes and two trellises on the

east side of the house,which have already been installed. Mr. Shulman would have preferred

repeating the round motif of the house instead of the square design.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR. STANSBURY SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Pamela Scully and Clifton Crais, 234 N. Pearl

The owners wish to installllite wood picket fence with three gates in their side

lu

3

and back yard to protect their children from the Pearl Street traffic. They chose a fence

consonant with the federal architecture of the house. Other properties in the area have 48"

fences.

Mr. Shulman would like to propose that the fence be in line with the wall of the house

instead of on the sidewalk and have green space outside the fence. He would like to see

landscaping.

There is an easement on the property,and Mr. Tailford stated that the 3' easement

conflict should be resolved between the neighbor,Mr. Oster,and Mr. Crais and Ms. Scully.

MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE STIPULATION

THAT THE NORTH-FACING FENCE TOWARD SUMMIT STREET BE IN LINE WITH

THE NORTH-FACING WALL OF THE HOUSE. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED,AND IT

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Exterior Lighting Guidelines

Policy is necessary to determine how much lighting is allowed to go beyond the property

line. GPC members agreed that single-family residences should be excluded. Mr. Salvage asked

whether we could formally ask Holophane to present guidelines,since our earlier request is still

pending. Mr. Tailford will send them a note with a copy to Ron Sheldon.

Work Session:

Country Hearth Inn,South Galway Drive

follows:

Representatives have made changes in plans since our last work session, and a summary

1. They widened the right of way to 40' with continuous sidewalk from Galway to the

property. Another sidewalk goes to Wendy's

2. They added landscaping on the southeast corner to screen parking. There will be

landscaping outside the sidewalk.

3. Side yard setback is 30' as planned, They designed a simpler roofline to reduce

height, but the height of 34.3 needs variance. They could move the building to the east but

would prefer to save that space for landscaping. Mr. Tailford stated that most of the building is

31'7"high and i f GPC approves, Country Hearth will not need a variance.

4. The application has to go to BZBA for conditional use permit.

5. Each room will have its own air conditioner.

6. Since the driveway is private,they will maintain it and plant trees.

7. They have an agreement with Wendy's for sewer and road access.

8. Storm water detention arrangements will adhere to the village and ODOT

requirements.

9. Lot coverage will be at 37.9 per cent even with sidewalks.

10. A ground sign in earthy tones,externally lit,will be at the southeast corner. Brick

base will match the building. They will ask for a variance since the code limits sign to 10 sq.ft.

Mr. Tailford suggested they match the size of Wendy's ground sign.

11. At Galway they request a small sign with the Country Hearth logo,and in the front

4

they will need a small ground sign identifying the check-in area. 12. At the east end elevation they have added three false windows on the second story

for aesthetic purposes and will add landscaping on the first story.

13. They showed beige vinyl siding samples with green shutters.

14. For lighting they are balancing safety with aesthetics. The building will be fairly

well lit,but the lighting plan is not ready yet.

15. The dumpster will have three sides of brick with a double gate of stained wood to

match color.

Adjournment: 10:00 p. m.

Next Meetings May 20 and June 3

GPC Minutes 4/22/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 22, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Montgomery,Keith Myers,Lyn Robertson,Richard Salvage,Marc

Shulman,Gary Stansbury

Members Absent:none

Also Present: Doug Tailford,Jr.,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Charles Peterson S( entinel),Jurgen Pape 4(03 E. Broadway)J,udith Thomas

4 Sheppard Place)G,reg Moore 1(0 Willowview)M,ary Fellabaum 3(10 W. Elm)J,ohn Kessler

238 E. College)E,arl and Joan Hawkins 1(18 Shannon Lane)L,arry B&etty Case 1(02

Shannon Lane)P,riscilla Pfalzer 1(22 Shannon Lane)D, ick H&ope Jolly 2(29 Shannon Lane),

Bob Carlson 1(16 ShannonF),rank O'BrienB- ernini 3(38 W.Elm)R,obert Essman 1(404 Cherry

Valley)L,. Kissack 3(63 Bryn Du)B,renda Boyle 1(33 Wicklow)R, .E. Kaiser 3(17 Shannon

Lane)R,obert Nutter 1(629 North St.J)i,m Robert V&ince Messerly J(obes Henderson)M, att

McGowan 3(30 Spellman)R,oy Riska,Frank Bentz M( idO- hio Development)J,im Schmidt &

William Anderson C(oncepts in Lodging)G, arry Wilcox T(raffic Eng. Services)D,an Bellman

Village Council)M, ary Kay Roberts

Minutes: April 8 Minutes warranted a revision,which will be reproduced and approved at the

next meeting.

Citizens Comments: Bob Carlson noted that with the new restaurants in Granville there will be

a big parking problem,since it is already inadequate. He would like to see more parking available

or no new restaurants.

Monomoy,West Broadway

Mr. Tailford has received an informal request from Monomoy to install window boxes

and trellises,painted to match the window trim. They have already started in install them

because they would like them installed by Commencement, and they will apply formally. Mr.

Myers stated that GPC can make a judgment call now but wants Denison to know that

applications are required before work begins. Consensus of the group was that the structures

may remain until Commencement but that when the application comes in, it will be considered

formally.

New Business:

Brent and Gigi Smith,225 East Elm -fence

The Smiths wish to install a 42"beige fence in the back yard to match the existing fence

in the front yard. Mr. Shulman ( and others)would have preferred that the applicants be present

to pinpoint the exact location of the fence on the hill. But since it meets all criteria,MR.

SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR. STANSBURY SECONDED,AND

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

iSusan

Hamann,312 S. Pearl

Ms. Hamann wishes to remove the existing 1/3 story addition and replace it with a twostory

addition. Greg Moore stated that exterior materials will match existing color and patterns.

MR SH[JLMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR STANSBURY SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNAN[ MOUSLY APPROVED.

Frank and Mary Rose O'Brien-Bemini,338 West Elm

The owners wish to build a 4'x8' mudroom addition inside the existing carport. The

redwood siding will match existing siding. MR-SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE

APPLICATION;MR. STANSBURY SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Signage Policy for Drop-off Boxes,Beverage Machines,etc.

The new draft for boxes,prepared by Mr. Tailford,was reviewed and revised. In the

first paragraph,change "pop"to "vending."

1. Delete "and shall not be easily seen from any public ROW."

2. delete "and located in the best possible location."

3. Change to "Internal illumination of product identification lighting of these structures

shall be prohibited. Lighting of the structures shall be minimized."

4. OK

Mr. Tailford will bring in a new version next time, and a copy will be sent to GBPA.

There is conflict among GPC members about whether these structures are signs.

Work Session:

Country Hearth Inn, South Galway

Jim Schmidt provided a conceptual plan for the 50-unit two-story motel they wish to

build behind Wendy's. The building will be 33' tall,vs, the maximum height of 30' allowed,will

be of old-looking brick on the lower level and have cream colored,heavy- grade vinyl siding

above,green shutters and dark shingles on the roof It will have dormer windows,a New

England colonial style and a country feel. Interior will have an elevator, electronic door locks, a

center lobby, a hearthroom with fireplace,and an interior corridor. Rates will be $55-75,

including complimentary continental breakfast.

The motel was designed for Granville and should provide a healthy economic impact for

the village. There would be a minimum of traffic,since it has no restaurant nor conference

2

2- ·

3.

L-/-

J -

j U£-/L d>106Dipt%,4-, ey have not

designed a sign yet,but know the code specifies landscaping and mounding. People need

directions to the motel, and a small ground sign may be needed,not internally lit,and another

sign at the driveway.

GPC members had not had opportunity to study the concept in advance,and it would

have been more efFicient had they done so. Some concerns were expressed by members:

1. Mr. Myers thought they could simplify the roofline;the "hat"on the design could be

eliminated,and the "cricket."

2. The excess height should be evaluated along with the rest of the structure.

3. The end facing Wendy's could be made more attractive.

4. Storm water requirements: It is a major slope and representatives said there would be

landscaping,and drainage would head across southeast of the property and fall off towards

Wendy's. They are proposing that the reduction will be in the parking area and discharged into

the ditch underneath the highway,which will require permission from ODOT.

5. Screening: As far as screening between Country Hearth and Wendy's, representatives

said there will be landscaping,mounding,and a drive and a mowable slope. Screening will also be needed between Country Hearth and Rt. 16 to screen cars parked on top of the hill,visible to

the highway.

6. Access is needed to the private drive. The private drive needs to have an easement

permitting future access to all adjacent lots and Wendy's.

7. Sidewalks will be on both sides of the private drive. One side will be done at

construction and the other will wait until future users are known.

8. Trash containers are to be enclosed and match the main building on three sides.

9. Parking: Representatives may consider moving the parking. There is a customer

drop-off"spot at front door.

Citizens added some input: Dan Bellman thought the lot too small for attractive

greenspace and buffer between the motel and the residences. Jurgen Pape suggested tieing in

greenspace with adjacent properties and trying to eliminate some asphalt.

McDonald's,South Galway

Ray Riska presented McDonald's plan to build on the northwest corner of Cherry Valley

and Galway. Traffic flows around the building,and parking will be away from the front on both

sides and against the building h(andicapped)E. xawia(y*from the intersection. The building )larger than standard and contains an indoor playspace in front of the restaurant. Landscaping

will be done,and a variance will be needed for 64 parking spaces instead of 89. They have

property next door which they wanted to leave as greenspace buffer but could use it for parking

if necessary. voul & 6,

04ll k.

For lighting there b*e ]c]u)to-ff lot lights,and they0 €look into lower and smaller lot lights than the typical 18' lights with 2' pedestal.

Signs: There will be twodirectional signs at each driveway, 2 sq.ft. each. In addition,

the golden arches road sign iigh and 8'wide,which is 64 sq. ft. of actual sign. There will 11-A 2 f

1

also be menu boards,but they would not have speaker posts,rather,the customer talks to a

person in a booth,pay at the next booth,and then pick up the order at the third station,a quieter

strategy. Several McDonald's logo M signs will be on the building. Total: (1)The big golden

arches;2 ()one on entrance driveway,3 ()one on the back drive,4 ()a monument sign similar to

Wendy's, 5(-10?M)'s on the side of the building. 1(1)The menu board. Some of these signs are

internally lit,some externally lit.

The building seats 70-75 people,and the playspace will seat approximately 30.

The appearance is a completely new design,following the concept of the nearby

condominiums. The material would be limestone on the bottom with stucco above and

weathered wood shingles.

There will be sidewalks all around the property and bike racks,but it is uncertain how

bikers will travel safely to the bike path.

GPC members provided input: Ms. Robertson preferred to see a more New England

architectural theme and asked the representatives to reconfigure the drawing,and Mr. Myers

would prefer less plate glass. He would like to see them repeat the brick siding more in keeping

with the Master Plan. He pointed out attractive McDonald's facilities in other locations. Mr.

Stansbury thought there were an excess of signs. Mr. Shulman suggested one joint sign for all

businesses on that corner. Mr, Salvage thought the parking planned was sufficient and he

suggested the parking be pushed back toward the residential development.

There was a question of whether the playspace was recreational. If so, it would require

less parking than a restaurant would.

Citizen comments: Brenda Boyle,from the home owners association at Village Green,

stated that most tenants were unaware a McDonald's might move into the neighborhood. There

are many children in residence already,and the residents fear for their children's safety en route

to an enticing playspace. Traffic through the Village Green would increase also.

Earl Hawkins does not like the proposed commercial development in that area. Traffic

would increase on Newark-Granville Road,and it would be inappropriate to have a high-trafficvolume

business there. He thought McDonald's should be across Rt. 16.

Mary K. Roberts,from across the road,does not like the idea of a McDonald's across the

street and feels Wendy's is enough. She feels she was misled by Mr. Murphy.

Dick Jolly,from Erinwood Condominiums, agrees with Ms. Boyle. He presented to the

GPC a petition signed by 60-65 per cent of the residents,stating that the traffic situation would

be bad and the quality of life impaired. Crime might increase. The residents do not desire

another 21st Street or Rt. 79 there.

Dan Bellman stated that this is a wrong location for McDonald's and it should be across

the street. He hoped that in the future the GPC would have opportunity to study the plans before

a potential tenant requests a presentation session.

Matt McGowan feels that the architecture should echo the Granville image.

Ruth Owen stated that we need to think of what the residents want rather than what the

corporate people want.

4

Announcements: Mr. Tailford asked members to read the draft on Satellite Dish Antennae

before the next meeting.

In order to address some housekeeping items,our next meeting will start at 7 p.m.

Adjournment. 10:00 p.m.

Next Meetings: May 6 (7 p.m.) and May 20

GPC Minutes 4/8/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 8, 1996

Revision}

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Montgomery,Keith Myers,Lyn Robertson, Richard Salvage,Marc

Shulman,Gary Stansbury

Members Absent:none

Also Present: Doug Tailford,Jr.,Village Planner

Visitors Present: S( entinel),Dan Havener,LarryWills, J&ohn Kantrum B(ob Evans),

Bernard Lucko M&ary Albright 3(43 E. College)N, oni B&ob Nutter 1(624 North Street),

Jeffrey Kobunski F(red Weigand)F,lo and Bill Hoffman 5(08 W. College)D,orothy Garrett 4(5

Donald Ross)J,urgen Pape 4(03 E. Broadway)J,udith Thomas 4( Sheppard Place)J,erry Griffin

4 Sheppard Place)T,ommy K&arolyn Burkett K&ris R( iver Road)

Minutes: March 18: Page 3, end ofParagraph 4,change "Village"to developer. Mr. Myers

moved to approve minutes,Mr. Salvage seconded,AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: Marc Shulman thanked Bob Kent for planting a large number of trees and

encouraged him to continue to forego development and allow the trees to mature. About 1350

trees were planted.

New Business:

Florence Hoffman,317 West Broadway

Mrs. Hoffman wishes to install a 6' cedar fence along and inside the side and back yard

lot lines to screen the church parking lot next door. The fence will pick up the curved facades of

the porch and will weather naturally. There is already a fence on the south property line. The

shrubbery at 317 West Broadway is too close to the house and is past its prime;Mr. Shulman

thought the site would be more attractive with new shrubbery rather than a fence. Mr. Myers

stated that the fence should have been installed at the time when the parking lot went in and that

landscaping should be done now. The Hoffmans stated that there is nothing in the public record

of fencing when the church was built.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION,MR.STANSBURY

SECONDED.AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bernard Lukco and Mary Albright,343 East College

The owners wish behind the to install a 6' solid fence along the back lot line and enclose the area garage.

MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR.MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY-APPROVED.

Fred Weigand,Lot 11232,131 Milner Road

Mr.Weigand is applying to have driveway access at the west side of the property,a deviation from the earlier eastern approval. Mr.Kobunski stated that the reasons are topographical and to place the garage in a more appropriate location for utilities and grading of the site. In addition,this would offer an attractive easterly view and permit a walkout basement. Mr. Tailford commented that any removal of public trees will have to be approved by Mark Zarbaugh,in conjunction with the Tree and Landscape Commission. Other than locating public trees,there is no vital purpose to require the access to be on the east side. MR SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY TO ALLOW ACCESS ANYWHERE ON MTT,NER ROAD SATISFACTORY TO THE VILLAGE SERVICE DIRECTOR. MR. SHJ[I«MAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Bob Evans,Cherry Valley at Rt. 16

With regard to the proposed restaurant,several citizens were present to express their

concerns. Judith Thomas is concerned about the appearance and wants it to fit in better with Granville. Jurgen Pape stated that Granville has fought hard to establish village guidelines and thinks we should abide with them. Karolyn Burkett wants to keep the look ofGranville;if we don't,this is likely to be another stripmall appearance. Noni Nutter asked why should business be taken away from local restaurants. She feels the architecture should be more to Granville's definition and something that tells better W" e are still in Granville.D" orothy Garrett thinks it is possible for the building to be not so bright red,more low key.

Ms. Robertson read a letter from Rose and Jack Wingert stating this area is still in Granville and the proposed Bob Evans could be precedent setting. Ms. Robertson also received

a number of phone calls of concern. She read from the Comprehensive Master Plan which recommends protection of elements to support the village's strong heritage. Lots of restaurants have modified their styles to fit more appropriately the community in which they want to locate.

Mr.Wills stated that this is a newly designed,expensive brick style Bob Evans,modified to the this site,and it is not feasible to change the style entirely. Mr. Havener explained what architectural changes have been made. In answer to a question ofwhy the top ofthe awning needs to be lit,Mr.Havener explained that it brings the red out and accentuates the building,as well as lighting the pathway. Ms. Robertson still felt it looked just like any other Bob Evans and

2

stated it should fit in better with Granville and offer a more New England appearance. Mr. Wills

stated that they want to be here and are making considerable concessions with their plan. Ms.

Thomas suggested designing a new prototype to fit in with their planned New England

structures.

Mr. Myers asked if the broken pediment could be alleviated and Mr. Havener thought

that would be possible. He also would prefer to have the water table bricks match the rest of the

brick. Mr. Wills had heard nothing previously about the necessity of changing the architecture

so drastically. Mr. Salvage thought it possible to arrive at a pleasing architecture and yet allow

them to retain their corporate image. Ms. Robertson stated that both in the Comprehensive

Master Plan and in the ordinance there is language to govern what we are looking forAMr.

Salvage stated that GPC does not actually have architectural review authority in this location and

that if it is desired,we should authorize a change.

Ms. Robertson summarized the conclusions of the discussion:

1. A majority of members prefer architecture to fit the Master Plan and the spirit of the

village. Close the pediments, and change the split-face block in the base to brick.

2. Decrease the number of lights to avoid a rosy glow yet maintain safety. Remove the

roof spotlights and the lights under the awning. A lighting plan needs to be submitted.

3. Location of the pond is OK.

4. GPC would prefer to have no parking in front,but generally agree with the site plan.

There will be a 3' hedgerow along the northwest parking lot and mounding south along Cherry

Valley. Some members prefer continuous screening on north and west with mounding. f o- Lf

6. Access to property to the south is required and will be shown on the plat, is subject 1-

A to change,however,according to the wishes of the GPC.

7. A monument sign without broken pediment is preferable,similar to Wendy's.

8. The front and side signs are too big.the maximum is 8 sq.ft,but that might be too

small.

9. A 6' treelawn will be satisfactory with some modifications for sidewalks.

10. There will be a brick enclosure around the dumpster.

Adjournment: 10:40 p.m.

Next Meetings April 22d and May 6

GPC Minutes 3/18/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 18, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson,

Richard Salvage, Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury

Members Absent: none

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Jr.,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Sentinel), Jim Siegel (Tree &Landscape

CommF.)r,ank &Kay Murphy (Murphy Group)D, an Havener (Bob

Evans),Tom Ellinger

Minutes: March 4: Mr. Stansbury moved to approve minutes, Mr.

Salvage seconded, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road

The McKnight Development Corp is requesting a 16 sq. ft. wooden contractor' s sign for identification purposes. MR.

SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James Young, Kussmaul Gallery, 140 East Broadway -Signs

Mr. Young is applying for (1) a 6' awning sign, (3) two

window signs, and a (3) sandwich board: (1) Mr. Tailford showed

color samples of the dark purple awning, which will have 4" letters across the drop. 2) The identical gold leaf window

signs are under 1 sq. ft. each. The front of the building is

green, and the whole building will be repainted the existing pink

color. (3) The sandwich board is the existing 2-sided projecting wall sign from 103 N. Prospect, to be hinged and to have its address changed. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR

AWNING SIGN, WINDOW SIGNS, AND SANDWICH BOARD; MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. This approval

includes a variance for three signs per business instead of two.

Mr. Young is asking for comments on a proposed wall sign to

be hung above the awning. The size is proportional with Hare Hollow and Woeste, constructed of sandblasted redwood, stained muted shades of pink and teal and stained wood tone, 16"high and

6' 3"wide with 9"letters. The sign is slightly larger than

permitted. Mr. Stansbury thought it would look better shorter,

and Mr. Shulman stated that there would be too many signs for the

business, and consensus agreed with these comments.

The Murphy Group, The Glen at Erinwood -Landscaping

The Murphy Group Landscape Plan has been considered by the

Tree and Landscape Commission, and the present plan was changed

to adhere to their recommendations. The plan includes a variety

of trees and will comply with the code except that trees may be

Planted every 70-80 feet instead of 50 because of existing trees

and driveways. Mr. Siegel felt that 75' spacing would be adequate

for an established area, whereas a new development should require

50'. Mr. Ellinger described the plan for the 2"diameter trees,

which are all on private property and are designed to screen the

properties.

MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE LANDSCAPING PLAN AS FAR AS

IT FOLLOWS THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TREE AND LANDSCAPE COMMISSION.

ALSO, SCREENING FOR THE PUMP HOUSE WILL BE DETERMINED BY

THE VILLAGE AND THE MURPHYS AND UPON ADVICE OF THE TREE AND

LANDSCAPE COMMISSION. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Brew's Cafe, 128 East Broadway -Sidewalk Cafe

The owners of Brew' s are reapplying for permission for a

sidewalk cafe with umbrellas. No changes have been made last over year' s approval; Village Council has approved advertising on the umbrellas. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR A

CAFE EXACTLY LIKE LAST YEAR' S. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Victoria' s Parlour, 134 East Broadway -Sidewalk Cafe

Hal Jackson is reapplying for permission for a sidewalk cafe

with umbrellas. No changes have been made over last year' s

approval; Village Council has approved advertising on the

umbrellas. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR A CAFE

EXACTLY LIKE LAST YEAR' S. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Bob Evans, Cherry Valley at Rt. 16

With reference to Mr. Tailford' s list of still unclarified

items, Dan Havener showed drawings of what has transpired since

the last work session: they moved the parking to the back and

relocated the retention basin for storm water. Mr. Myers thought

the pond could be relocated in a less obtrusive spot. 1) They

eliminated a portion of the red roof and (2) reduced the number

of roof lights. 4) {see lighting plan} They reduced the

lighting of the Bob Evans sign, which is internally lit. There

will be lights underneath the awning.

2

4) Mr Myers wondered why the awning needed to be lit,

Particularly if there is no walkway explained underne«ath, and Mr. Havener that this is done to all their restaurants, but he thought the lighting could be looked at again with an eye to reducing it some more. Mr. Havener stated that they aim for a 1' candle minimum, and Mr. Shulman does not want the site to be brighter than Wendy' s. The maximum should be 10' candles. Ms.

Rnootbheinrtgson stated that there still was nothing unique about it, related to Granville. Mr. Havener stated the necessity

for corporate recognition.

3) Mr. Havener stated that an overall access plan will be

Prepared when it has been determined who will occupy the next property.

5) Mr Myers thought the landscaping should be continuous,

with evergreen trees, with a hedge along Cherry Valley Road for screening.

6) Mr. Havener will propose sidewalks up to the edge of

their property, up to the future motel. He does not feel they

are responsible for the pedestrian crossing, and Mr. Tailford

stated that the V*see*w*ill put in a pushb- utton crossing signal. 4-

Some other items left unfinished:

1) The overall site plan will be provided with the plat.

2) Soil information will be provided.

3) The treelawn width will be 6'.

4) Streetlights will be coordinated with SuperAmerica and

approved by GPC.

AEP lights,

crosswalk?

Mr. Tailford stated that they will be standard

but are they really necessary other than at the

At this point consensus did not want them.

5) Motel location and development plan will be marked

Proposed."

6) Adjacent owners' names will be on the plans.

7) The landscaping around the dumpster will be "beefed up." 8) Mr.

landscaping u

9) Mr.

than 30'.

Adjournment:

Next Meetings:

Myers suggested changing the island into a

nit, forfeiting one parking slot.

Myers stated that the flagpole must be no taller

9: 30 p. m.

April 8th and 22d.

GPC Minutes 3/4/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 4, 1996

Minutes

Maxine Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson,

Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury

none

Doug Tailford, Jr.

Visitors Present: Sentinel),

Mineo, 209 N. Granger

Minutes: February 20:

change 2' to 2 sq. ft.

Salvage seconded,

Village Planner

Larry Miller (EVEREN), Tom

Page 1, in second line up on page one,

Mr. Shulman moved to approve minutes, Mr.

AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

Old Business:

EVEREN Securities, 527 Newark Road

Mr. Miller brought a revised sign proposal to reflect the

business' new name, and GPC members felt that the new one echoes

what they were trying to convey at the last meeting. The trim

color will match the building, and the cream-colored post will

match trim on the sign. Mr. Myers suggested that Mr. Miller take

a good look at the height of the sign at installation and see

whether it might look better a little lower.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. MYERS

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Eloise DeZwarte, American Express, 110 East Elm

Ms. DeZwarte had assumed that the previous sign approval was

applicable to her new sign, which is the same size, framing, and

locatioh. The new repainted sign reflects the name change for

her IDS business, and Mr. Tailford had asked her to reapplY·

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE; MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND IT

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bob and Peggy Briner, 303 S. Main

The Briners have installed an unpainted handicap ramp and

French doors, which was approved by Mr. Plunkett and Mr. Tailford

as an emergency measure. Mr. Shulman asked whether landscaping

was intended, and consensus agreed that the ramp/deck would look

nice landscaped.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE; MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Thomas and Kathleen Mineo, 209 North Granger Street

The Mineos wish to build a 231 sq. ft. addition to the back

of the house, add French doors, and add a new door on the side to

match one next door. Mr. Mineo explained that they intend to

enclose a screen porch and make a study and add a bathroom and

bring the washroom upstairs. Although the application specified

vinyl siding,"they will not be using vinyl but will match the

rest of the house.

MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE, MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Announcements:

Mr. Tailford brought to GPC' s attention an undated letter

from Matt McGowan listing several concerns, the only one on which

was relevant to this group concerned a Fed Ex box at Erinwood

Offices. This box (as well as pop machines but not including

Post Office boxes) is subject to the advertising sign code. Mr. Tailford had written Mr. McGowan a thoroughly researched but has response heard no more from him.

Although GPC felt this was not a big problem, since the Fed

Ex box is within the office complex and not very visible, consensus

felt that Mr. Tailford should draft a policy statement

delineating regulations on such receptacles. Mr. Myers stated

that consistency is important in order to avoid being arbitrary

or capricious. Ms. Montgomery stated that Village Council has

not discussed the letter nor taken a position as yet, therefore;

it would be appropriate for Mr. Tailford to draft a policy soon.

Adjournment: 8: 25 p. m.

Next Meeting: March 18. April meetings are the 8th and 22d.

GPC Minutes 2/5/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 20. 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Kooerison.

Richard Salvage, Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury

Members Absent: ncne

Also Present: Doug Tailford, T- 9-.V,illage Planner

Visitors Present: Sentinel):Connie

Prospect),Vicki Bolander (125 Crestlin

W. Broadway).Larry Miller (EVEREN)

Westbrook (128 S.

e).Richard Pinkerton (116

Minutes: January 16: Pace 2. Delete last sentence in the

paragraph beginning "Mr. Farrar." Mr. Salvage moved to apprcve

minutes as corrected, Mr. Stansbury seconded, AND MINUTES WERE

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments:

Nominations:

Mr. Stansbury

H 17 9*e .. seconded. AND

Mr. Myers move

Mr. Shulman seconde

None

moved to nominate yn Kooer:son as unair, Mr.

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

d zo nominate Garv Stansoury as Vice Chair,

d. AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Kancy and Sandy Smith, 125 S. Plum

The Smiths

their back yard

visible from the

off for safety.

mendation that i

seconded, AND IT

wish to install a 4' high wood picket fence in

to match the neighbors- fence. This will not be

street and will go along a wall beside a drop-

Mr. Stansbury moved to approve with recomi

be. painted white or natural. Mr. Saivage

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Richard Pinkerton, Pinkerton Real Estate, 116 West Broadway

Mr. Pinkerton

change the name on one

with the code,

in the right of way. -

signs per business: Mr.

business is separate

would have preferred to s

since it is in

be able to change

many years; the right of

stated that since Mr.

the sign and since it is

it not as a new sign out

to repaint

i them. Thi

iy the sign

ze GPC member

inkerion sta

i the Bryn Du

ee the sign

rming distri

ig. The sign

way runs up

ikerton is .no

on ly / 8 over

rather as a

the existing pole signs and

s sign is not in conformance

height: sign area, and it is

s objected to having two

ted that the real estate

aspect. Ms. Robertson

closer to the building, but

ct, the applicant would not

has been there for a good

to the building. Mr. Myers

t changing the character or

maximum, he woula interpres

refurbishment.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN,

THAT IT IS A REFURBISHMENT, NOT A CHANGE.

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

EVEREN Securities,

WITH THE UNDERSTANDING

MR. STANSBURY

526 Newark-Granville Road -Sign

Lawrence C. Miller, Branch Manager. described the sign

proposed for the business- s new name: to be substicuted for the

existing sign. He stated that they are changing nothing except

the name and the color of the wood-sculpted hunter green sign,

which will be less than 8 sq. ft. with a boarder. It will fit

within the space now occupied by the words "Kemper Securities."

However, Mr. Miller had not seen the drawing for the new sign and

it was not as he described; it is over maximum size, and would

not fit in the space. GPC members preferred the old sign to the

new sign, which was more contemporary and not in keeping with the

building- s character.

Mr. Miller chose to table the application and return the new

proposed sign at the next meeting. MD MYERS MOVED TO TABLE, MR.

SALVAGE SECONDED. AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

r £ r. Vickie nolanaer, Jimply Yictcria' s Antiques, 120 W. Broadway

Ms. bolancer wishes to have a

red iettering for her business that

Blocms. Ms. Robertson would prefer

left side of the sidewalk. The app

the sign at the close of each busin

not overly bright. maybe considerin

8 sq. ft. sandwich board witn

is located within Broadway

that it be located on the

licant was reminded to take in

ess day and to make the red

g a burgundy or "Den.ison red."

MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION, WITH A SLIGHT

REDUCTION OF THE RED BRIGHTNESS AND LOCATION TO BE BETWEEN THE

SIDEWALK AND THE HOUSE, WEST OF THE SIDEWALK. MR. SALVAGE

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Connie Westbrook, 128 S. Prospect

Ms. Westbrook wishes to replace all windows

Corning Fiberglas windows throughout the house; the

the house and windows will not change. MR. SALVAGE

APPROVE APPLICATION, MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND IT

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

with Owens

appearance of

MOVED TO

WAS

Announcements: Mr. Tailford updated the group about steps the

Merger Commission has developed to comply with a possible merger

or village and township.

Adjournment:

Next Meeting: 8th and 22d.

8: 40 p. m.

March 4 and March 13. April meetings are the

GPC Minutes 01/16/96

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

January 16, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson,

Richard Salvage, Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury

Members Absent: none

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Jr.,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Sentinel),Bud &Debbie Farrar (323 N.

Granger),Mary Ann &Bob Malcuit (126 W. Elm),Evelyn Frolking

Welsh Hills School),Gail Myers (204 W. Broadway),Dan Bellman

320 N. Pearl),Kim Zeune (Pataskala),John Thaxton, Mark

Savieterman, Robert Apel, Don Homan (SuperAmerica),Charles West

Woolpert),Don Hill (209 W. Broadway)

Minutes: December 4: Page 1, 4th line up, change "there" to

through Erinwood progertv. Page 2, add at end of Announcements:

We decided to make no statement at all. Page 3, line 3, delete

editorial." Line 3 under No- 1, delete "the addition of."

Mr. Myers moved to approve minutes as corrected, Mr. Salvage

seconded, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

Donita Hill, 209 West Broadway

The Hills wish to do some general remodeling. They will not

cut away a quarter of a kitchen window, as stated in the application;

instead, they will do some reworking to leave the exterior

of the window as is. Mr. Hill stated that they realize the

architectural importance of the house and wish to remove the

apartment and restore the original plan as much as possible: 1)

They will replace the side door on west side with a 6-over-6

window and (2) replace the back windows with two wooden Anderson

glassed hinged 60x81" patio window-doors. Shutters will be

added. 3) A skylight is requested on the shed roof of the back

room, and it will not be visible from the street.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION, MR. SHULMAN SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Welsh Hills School. 2610 Newark-Granville Road

An 18 sq. ft. forest green permanent ground sign is requested,

4 high with landscaping. Mrs. Frolking stated it is a

traditional style, sand blasted redwood, set back from the road

in a triangle controlling the traffic flow, and lit. She is

asking for a variance over the maximum allowable size in order

that the sign can be read from the road. A donor provided funding

for the sign, and the applicants wish to add the donor- s name

to the bottom of the sign in letters 3/4" to 1" high.

Mr. Stansbury thinks GPC should adhere to the ordinance and

require the maximum 10 sq. ft. size. Mrs. Frolking stated that

for a very large building surrounded by a large acreage, a larger

sign will not be overpowering. The purpose of the sign is for

identification rather than advertising and is smaller than those

of other establishments on Newark-Granville Road.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. MR. MYERS

SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED FOUR TO ONE (Mr. Stansbury).

Granville Athletic Boosters

The Boosters are planning to move the old Harmon- Burke

football field to New Burg Street. Mrs. Farrar presented the

Proposal to raise funds to build the new facility without tax

revenues. Mr. Plunkett showed a drawing of the new track/ soccer/

football field, which will have a bike path and plentiful parking

in the existing lots. There will be four 607'-5' lights; Mr.

Shulman requests that the lighting be confined within the

facility. The eight-lane all-weather track will be encircled by a

4' fence within the 6- boundary chainlink fence. Mr. Shulman

would prefer another type fence than chainlink. Mr. Myers

suggested an attractive dark green vinyl-coated chainlink design

with pine trees and to use mounding for extra seating when the

site is designed. Landscaping is planned outside the fencing.

Conditional use can be requested at the time the application is

filed, and Mr. Tailford will consult with Mr. Hurst on whether

conditional use is required.

Mr. Farrar described the plan for advertising signs to be

installed within the seating area. In exchange for their donation

and in recognition of their gift, five businesses will be

entitled to a 4x8- sign in each endzone for a five-year duration-

Flanking these signs will be six smaller (4x4')signs in each

endzone. All 22 signs will be attractive, of uniform material

and size and will not be visible from the street. Ms. Robertson

prefers plaques to advertising signs. Mr. Farrar stated that a

plague at the flagpole will recognize major donors, and bricks

wi 1 1 be so ld to raise funds. DEfr--trraditional for s.t--hteA*re

Lields to d- iepla*1:e.-*-,L,-ii-ng :sialls-;

Mr. Salvage felt GPC has no jurisdiction on signage or the

inside fence and stated that a landscaping plan and suitable

screening are necessary. BZBA would need to consider a conditional

use. Tonight our discussion is to determine resolution

via consensus on the signage, fencing, and lighting.

MR. SALVAGE RECOMMENDED THAT BZBA APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL

USE FOR THE ATHLETIC FIELD. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

2

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT GPC HAS NO OBJECTION TO ADEQUATE

LIGHTING FOR THE COMPLEX BUT THAT WE DO WANT TO SEE A LIGHTING

PLAN BY AN EXPERT. MR. MYERS SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT GPC RECOMMENDS THAT BZBA APPROVE THE

USE OF A CHAINLINK FENCE 6' HIGH AROUND THE ATHLETIC COMPLEX WITH

THE UNDERSTANDING THAT PARTICULARLY ALONG NEW BURG STREET

APPROPRIATE MEASURES ARE TAKEN TO SOFTEN THE APPEARANCE OF THE

FENCE. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT GPC RECOGNIZES THAT IT HAS NO

JURISDICTION ON ADVERTISING SIGNS WITHIN THE ATHLETIC COMPLEX.

MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED WITH THE

UNDERSTANDING FOR THE RECORD THAT MS. ROBERTSON AND MR. STANSBURY

PREFER THAT ADVERTISING SIGNS BE MINIMIZED OR REDUCED AS MUCH AS

POSSIBLE IN SIZE SO AS NOT TO PRESENT AN OVERBEARING NATURE.

Work Session:

SuperAmerica, Cherry Valley Road at Rt. 10

Mr. Thaxton provided revised plans and drawings for the

Proposed gas station. Macdonalds will build next door, and the

other two lots of the 17-acre complex are unsold as yet. A

Portion of the property in the floodway or floodplain will be

donated to the Granville Land Conservancy. He explained some

changes to the previous plans:

1. Trucks will be prevented from using right-in/right-out

by erecting a "no trucks" sign.

2. Our entrance will not be the main entrance into

Macdonald- s.

3. The temporary culdesac will go around the back.

4. They will permit a crossover easement to the Vanatta

property.

5. A more suitable design for the building than the

standard S/A layout, with red brick on building and posts at the

as islands with darker brick bricks interspersed in the lower

portion.

6. An interior 5- concrete sidewalk system handicapped

accessible with 5 public sidewalks and a connection to the

bikepath.

7. Sign for gas prices will be located on the corner. A

second sign for the four businesses 10 sq. ft. per user on Cherry

Valley Road will direct traffic into the complex.

8. Lighting plan is not ready yet.

9. With the internal road system, they have tried to bring

the traffic off the street as much as possible and running

smoothly.

10. A videotape of the site was shown.

11. Landscaping will be done to hide mulch and salt piles.

The piles. will be restricted to a 3 1/2- height.

12. The wire fence along the highway belongs to ODOT, and

3

Macdonald- s wanted to remove it, perhaps replacing it with ·a

white board fence. If ODOT is agreeable, we could recommend that

on the plan.

13. We are considering a push-button pedestrian crossing

across Cherry Valley Road.

14. A standard small highway information sign will be

erected to inform drivers of the upcoming complex.

GPC members had some concerns:

1. M s. Robertson had thought there would be no stock piled

outside the gas station.

2. Mr. Myers had concerns about parking in front of the

building and relocation of the building with pumps in front with

a canopy which will hide the building from the road, and he

suggested moving the building, but Mr. Thaxton and the engineers

thought (1) there would not be enough traffic maneuvering room if

they moved it, (2) they did not want to put the back of the

building toward the customer, and (3) the open area was necessary

for safety concerns. Ms. Robertson challenged S/A to change the

orientation of the building.

3. The necessity of the service road in front was discussed

and the fact that there are too many entrances. The traffic flow

needs to be revised.

4. The back of the building is too close to the road; the

service road in front steals valuable space from the area in

back.

5. Members were still concerned about whether the culdesac

was really necessary on the fourth lot.

6. Mr. Bellman suggested cornbining all four businesses

under one roof and make a very attractive complex, or at least

the gas station and Macdonald s.

Ms. Robertson summarized the discussion as enumerated above

and stated that there will be another work session.

Announcements: Mr. Tailford informed the group about the

committee charged with examining the Planned Development District

chapter, and it was decided to postpone further discussion on the

subj ect.

Adjournment:

Next Meeting:

10: 45 p. m.

Next Meeting: February 5 and 20

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.