GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 1, 1996
Members Present: Shulman, Maxine Montgomery,Keith Myers,Lyn Robertson,Richard Salvage,Marc Gary Stansbury
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION