Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes 10/7/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 7, 1996

Minutes

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

Richard Salvage, Marc Shulman

Members Absent: Gary Stansbury

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors Present:

on attached sheets.

Scott Rawden (Sentinel),

Minutes of September 23, 1996:

and about 31 names as

Page 1, correct Harold Attebery' s spelling in Visitors

section.

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

the proposed home.

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

development plan.

MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES; MR. STANSBURY

SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

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

She assured the caller that we have been thinking about

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

request to Village Council.

Ms. Montgomery suggested putting a time limit on our agenda

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

new applications. She did not think we could alter plans

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

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

in a timely fashion and wanted guidance from Village

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

Citizens Comments:

Ed Vance suggested that meetings would be improved with

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

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

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

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

Old Business:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

benefits the entire community. The house would be less visible

at 100'.

Ms. Robertson suggested a different approach; Mr. Randall

Arendt at the Planning Conference suggested clustering homes, but

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

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

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

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

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

Kobunsky agreed to this.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION UNTIL APPLICANT

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

PROPOSED HOUSE, AND MR. WINTERS' HOUSE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eloise DeZwarte, 1921 Newark-Granville Road -Sign

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

Public Hearing

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

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

2

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

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

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

consider the plan to best serve that use. Changes recommended

at the work sessions have been addressed. Lot coverage remains

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

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

and Landscape Committee has requested adjustments to the landscaping

plans and Country Hearth has agreed to accommodate them.

Country Hearth has addressed all concerns in previous meetings.

Some engineering issues are still to be resolved but are not

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

Setbacks and parking are within regulations. The lightihg plan

meets with guidelines, but they conflict in terms of fixtures

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

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

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

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

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

have been addressed:

A. Provided easement for ingress and egress

B. 5' sidewalks from Galway to Country Hearth

C. Dumpster enclosed and materials match building

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

E. Pitch of roof line

F. Addition of windows to east end

Changes recommended in second work session:

A. Received variance from BZBA for roof height

B. Moved building slightly to the east

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

D. Samples of siding and brick were shown

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

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

hallways.

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

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

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

h

3

1

r.

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

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

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

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

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

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

this.

F. They determined by computer analysis that lot coverage is

61. 5 per cent.

G. Landscape will surround the building. They are not

asking for any variances and all issues brought up have been

addressed.

Mr. Rafeld, landscape architect, stated that they responded

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

impact of the building. There< exists vegetation providing

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

tall, which will grow together and provide a significant screening

wall. To soften building, deciduous trees will be placed

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

not completely obscured. There are trees on either side of

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

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

lighting plan will conform with Granville' s standards. Lighting

must reveal the building and also provide security.

Part 3, Public Comment.

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

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

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

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

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

noise from busses bringing clients late at night, students

partying, drug dealers, prostitution, fighting over parking

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

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

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

not starting out as a good neighbor because when neighbors

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

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

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

4

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

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

consider development plan based on that approval. Mr. Vance

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

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

of the project and is therefore not eligible to appeal.

RON WINTERS is not sure we need more motels. Conditional

uses will change the character of Granville rapidly.

CLIFTON CRAIS read a letter from Phelps Jones, resident of

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

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

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

processing places. Highway motels provide easy access to dealers

and swift getaways when police come near. Hazardous waste is

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

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

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

wondered how Country Hearth can ensure it will not attract the

wrong type of people.

JEFF DUNCAN thought it was interesting that whenever he

stopped in a motel in California there were families living

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

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

Hearth plan to have food and alcohol?

CONSTANCE BARSKY asked questions about the harmonious nature

of the business with the neighborhood. What about occupancy

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

neighborhood? She worried about the traffic congestion. A big

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

type operation. She asked about the planned obsolescence and the

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

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

Wilkenfeld wishes Mr. Reyazi would recalculate this.

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

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

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

5

1

Part 4, Commission Questions.

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

applicant failed to meet code: lot coverage and signage.

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

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

Schmidt agreed to this suggestion.

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

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

plans require that the lighting engineer must say that the plan

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

came up and they hired a lighting consultant who got all

information available and added that up with foot candles and

said it meets Granville standards.

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

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

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

any purpose; they appear to be advertising rather than safety

lighting. He added that GPC made Bob Evans remove extra

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

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

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

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

E. He asked whether our engineer has approved the storm

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

is a problem, water could utilize existing storm system.

Mr. Shulman had questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. He asked about additional lighting and whether fixtures

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

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

Ms. Robertson had some concerns:

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

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

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

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

6

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

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

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

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

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

entry, shining down on the sidewalk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Salvage ·thought that since they meet all standards

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

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

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

f.

7

indicate a problem with signage. Ms. Robertson said that

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

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

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

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

limited to site plan. Ms. Robertson will abstain.

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

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

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

Banchevsky added that the Law Director said Village Council

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

Director said should happen. Mr. Wilkenfeld added that the

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

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

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

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

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

health, safety, general welfare, etc.

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

SECONDED THE MOTION. MAJORITY APPROVED MOTION WITH 3 AYES.

MR. SALVAGE THEN MOVED TO VOTE TONIGHT.

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

Based on public comment, there might not have been sufficient

public notice given. The attorney thought it unfair to get

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

will not accept public comment.

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

MOTION TO TABLE WAS WITHDRAWN.

New Business:

Russ Adams, 111 N. Prospect -AROD Application

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

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

glazed windows with small divider panes.

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

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Police Department, 141 East Broadway -Sign

Mr. Reyazi explained that a new lighted identification sign

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

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. MYERS

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Nancy Ross, IGA -Sandwich Board

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

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

walkway outside the building.

8

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

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jules and Rochelle Steinberg, 425 E. College -Fence

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

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

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James Young, 223 N. Granger -AROD Application

Mr. Young wishes to remove interior chimney and replace with

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

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

APPLICATION WAS GRANTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.

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

Changes to driveway from gravel to cement have been made,

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

make his decision on A. C.

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

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

John Compton -341 East Broadway -AROD Application

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

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

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

any of the gingerbread. He is also requesting permission to

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

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

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

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

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

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Announcements:

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

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

9

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

Adjournment: 10: 50 p. m.

Next Meetings: October 21 & November 4.

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.