Granville Community Calendar

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

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.