Granville Community Calendar

GPC 09/23/96

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.
absent on the 7th.
Mr. Stansbury will be
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
6

GPC 09/09/96

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. be absent on the 7th.
Mr. Stansbury will
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
m
6

GPC 10/21/96

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
7

GPC 10/07/96

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
6- 4
10

GPC 11/29/96

MEMO
TO:
From:
Date:
Re:
Granville Planning Commission
Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
November 29, 1996
GPC meeting on December 2, 1996
I never thought I would be writing such a memo,but here it is. There are no items on the agenda for
the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, December 2, and since I have not heard from any one
regarding a need for a meeting there will not be a meeting. I must inform you that your approval of the
Country Hearth Inn site plan has been appealed by a group of citizens. I have included a copy of the
revised lighting guidelines,please review them and if you have any comments let me know. I hope I
have added to your enjoyment of this holiday weekend with the memo. I will try to

GPC 11/18/96

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.
3
4
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
Reyazi thought slides would be helpful when
3. Mr.
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-*S@ECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 49 -
Adjournment: 10: 10 p. m.
Next Meetings: December 2 and 16
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
Lr
5

GPC 11/04/96

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
6

GPC 05/20/96

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 03/18/96

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
3

GPC 03/04/96

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
2

GPC 07/15/96

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 06/10/96

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
5

GPC 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.
N. B.: February 5 and 20
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4

GPC 07/01/96

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 histyoeraicraslthinetemgarintys.ioNn-ioswb-ethinegy rweimshodtoeleednhaanndcethtahteMenr.tranceway 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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
3

GPC 02/20/96

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
2
1

GPC 12/16/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 16, 1996
Minutes
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 (Sentinel),
21st St.)B,etty Morrison
Minutes of November 18, 1996:
David Neel (964 N.
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)
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
2

GPC 08/18/96

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
3

GPC 08/05/96

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandy Ellinger,Acting Secretary
7

GPC 08/19/96

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
3

GPC 04/22/96

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
0-
5

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.