Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes 10/21/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 21, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Lyn Robertson, Richard

Salvage, Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury

Members Absent: Keith Myers

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

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

Franklin Bush, Bridget Kahle, James Schmidt (Concepts in

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

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

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

Wilkenfeld

Minutes of October 7, 1996:

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

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

Robertson reported that." To Citizens Comments, add Several

other citizens also addressed this issue.

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

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

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

since 1960."

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

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

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

what she had. (See revised notes.)

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

AND MINUTES WERE TABLED PENDING REVIEW OF REVISED MINUTES.

Citizens Comments:

Ms. Montgomery reported on four items from Village Council:

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

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

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

other procedural matters, such as time limits for decisions.

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

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

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

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

1

public hearings, adjudicatory hearings, including one member per

group. Rob Drake will represent V. C.

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

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

Business should come first. Ms. Robertson thought that uncomplicated

applications could come first. Mr. Salvage suggested

handling New Business before Country Hearth (CH) tonight.

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

resident, William E. Wilson, who objected to undesirable

additions to the area. Residents were told that businesses would

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

CH' s application.

Old Business:

John Compton, 341 East Broadway

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

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

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

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

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

we need these materials before we can approve application. After

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

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

Mark Cassidy, 332 E. College -Home Occupation Sign

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

b,

2

3

red letters.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED PENDING

RECEIPT OF AN EXACT DRAWING WHICH DOES NOT EXCEED THE 2

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

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

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

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

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

and others have received permission for banners, there is

precedent.

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

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

APPROVED.

Ms. Robertson wants banner removed promptly after the event.

Joe Hickman, 326 N. Granger

Mr. Hickman is requesting removal of three windows on south

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

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

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

go back on.

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

SALVAGE SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

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

Old Business Continued

Country Hearth (CH) Inn, South Galway

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

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

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

but the permit has not been issued yet.

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

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

construction standards do not necessarily apply with a private

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

Schmidt said they gould comply with the village standards.

W6+47 /r D-*

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

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

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

storm drainage to public standards.

Mr. Shulman that the engineer planted this concern in his

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

under village standards because in the future a new

business might be interested in the road being public.

Mr. Salvage thinks the approval could be subject to the

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

state that approval should be to public road standards because of

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

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

being built to public standards rather than changing them later.

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

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

regard to public street standards on storm water runoff, applicant

will comply with public standards. Other issues are

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

regarding concrete depth.

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

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

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

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

case it becomes a public road.

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

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

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

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

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

4

5

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

should not accept new input. Ms.

information could be considered;

mation has to be set aside.

Robertson said that any new

Mr. Salvage thought new infor-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Robertson asked whether the power company could tear

down screening on easements and wondered whether it was really a

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

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

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

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

easements can be excluded as greenspace. Ms. Robertson asked

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

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

Ms. Robertson stated that although BZBA approved the application,

we are charged with ensuring that traffic is not a

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

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

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

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

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

from those in the study.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rates are high enough to attract better clientele. There are

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

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

Robertson asked whether they would be willing to hold a public

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

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

Robertson thought it would be appropriate because there are a lot

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

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

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

after the process is over.

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

many people are against the application. He sympathizes with

them but sees nothing in the code which would preclude approval

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

fixture and intensity guidelines and should be a condition of

approval.

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

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

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

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

CONDITIONS PLACED ON IT BY THE VILLAGE ENGINEER IN REGARD TO

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

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

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

MR.

MR.

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

THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

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

UU-C 420,

6

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

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

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

work sessions and hearings and listening to our views and making

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

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

that small specialty shops might be more detrimental because of

more parking, etc. The most detrimental aspect concerns the

neighbors.

Ms. Robertson will abstain, mainly because she cannot vote

for something in good conscience where people have not been

allowed full input.

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

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

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

next car at 9'.

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

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

the permeability beginning with reducing the parking spaces.

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

reason for voting for the motion is in looking through conditional

uses, other businesses would generate more traffic. He

appreciates the neighbors' position.

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

consider eliminating entrance to the east and west exits.

They will analyze this internally and also sit down with the

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

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

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

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

Shulman wanted to add other appropriate people.

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

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

between Mr. Reyazi ahd applicant.

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

Adjournment: 10: 50 p. m.

Next Meetings: November 4 and November 18

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.