GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 8, 1996
Members Present: Maxine Montgomery,Keith Myers,Lyn Robertson, Richard Salvage,Marc
Also Present: Doug Tailford,Jr.,Village Planner
Visitors Present: S( entinel),Dan Havener,LarryWills, J&ohn Kantrum B(ob Evans),
Bernard Lucko M&ary Albright 3(43 E. College)N, oni B&ob Nutter 1(624 North Street),
Jeffrey Kobunski F(red Weigand)F,lo and Bill Hoffman 5(08 W. College)D,orothy Garrett 4(5
Donald Ross)J,urgen Pape 4(03 E. Broadway)J,udith Thomas 4( Sheppard Place)J,erry Griffin
4 Sheppard Place)T,ommy K&arolyn Burkett K&ris R( iver Road)
Minutes: March 18: Page 3, end ofParagraph 4,change "Village"to developer. Mr. Myers
moved to approve minutes,Mr. Salvage seconded,AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY
Citizens Comments: Marc Shulman thanked Bob Kent for planting a large number of trees and
encouraged him to continue to forego development and allow the trees to mature. About 1350
trees were planted.
Florence Hoffman,317 West Broadway
Mrs. Hoffman wishes to install a 6' cedar fence along and inside the side and back yard
lot lines to screen the church parking lot next door. The fence will pick up the curved facades of
the porch and will weather naturally. There is already a fence on the south property line. The
shrubbery at 317 West Broadway is too close to the house and is past its prime;Mr. Shulman
thought the site would be more attractive with new shrubbery rather than a fence. Mr. Myers
stated that the fence should have been installed at the time when the parking lot went in and that
landscaping should be done now. The Hoffmans stated that there is nothing in the public record
of fencing when the church was built.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION,MR.STANSBURY
SECONDED.AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Bernard Lukco and Mary Albright,343 East College
The owners wish behind the to install a 6' solid fence along the back lot line and enclose the area garage.
MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR.MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY-APPROVED.
Fred Weigand,Lot 11232,131 Milner Road
Mr.Weigand is applying to have driveway access at the west side of the property,a deviation from the earlier eastern approval. Mr.Kobunski stated that the reasons are topographical and to place the garage in a more appropriate location for utilities and grading of the site. In addition,this would offer an attractive easterly view and permit a walkout basement. Mr. Tailford commented that any removal of public trees will have to be approved by Mark Zarbaugh,in conjunction with the Tree and Landscape Commission. Other than locating public trees,there is no vital purpose to require the access to be on the east side. MR SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY TO ALLOW ACCESS ANYWHERE ON MTT,NER ROAD SATISFACTORY TO THE VILLAGE SERVICE DIRECTOR. MR. SHJ[I«MAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Bob Evans,Cherry Valley at Rt. 16
With regard to the proposed restaurant,several citizens were present to express their
concerns. Judith Thomas is concerned about the appearance and wants it to fit in better with Granville. Jurgen Pape stated that Granville has fought hard to establish village guidelines and thinks we should abide with them. Karolyn Burkett wants to keep the look ofGranville;if we don't,this is likely to be another stripmall appearance. Noni Nutter asked why should business be taken away from local restaurants. She feels the architecture should be more to Granville's definition and something that tells better W" e are still in Granville.D" orothy Garrett thinks it is possible for the building to be not so bright red,more low key.
Ms. Robertson read a letter from Rose and Jack Wingert stating this area is still in Granville and the proposed Bob Evans could be precedent setting. Ms. Robertson also received
a number of phone calls of concern. She read from the Comprehensive Master Plan which recommends protection of elements to support the village's strong heritage. Lots of restaurants have modified their styles to fit more appropriately the community in which they want to locate.
Mr.Wills stated that this is a newly designed,expensive brick style Bob Evans,modified to the this site,and it is not feasible to change the style entirely. Mr. Havener explained what architectural changes have been made. In answer to a question ofwhy the top ofthe awning needs to be lit,Mr.Havener explained that it brings the red out and accentuates the building,as well as lighting the pathway. Ms. Robertson still felt it looked just like any other Bob Evans and
stated it should fit in better with Granville and offer a more New England appearance. Mr. Wills
stated that they want to be here and are making considerable concessions with their plan. Ms.
Thomas suggested designing a new prototype to fit in with their planned New England
Mr. Myers asked if the broken pediment could be alleviated and Mr. Havener thought
that would be possible. He also would prefer to have the water table bricks match the rest of the
brick. Mr. Wills had heard nothing previously about the necessity of changing the architecture
so drastically. Mr. Salvage thought it possible to arrive at a pleasing architecture and yet allow
them to retain their corporate image. Ms. Robertson stated that both in the Comprehensive
Master Plan and in the ordinance there is language to govern what we are looking forAMr.
Salvage stated that GPC does not actually have architectural review authority in this location and
that if it is desired,we should authorize a change.
Ms. Robertson summarized the conclusions of the discussion:
1. A majority of members prefer architecture to fit the Master Plan and the spirit of the
village. Close the pediments, and change the split-face block in the base to brick.
2. Decrease the number of lights to avoid a rosy glow yet maintain safety. Remove the
roof spotlights and the lights under the awning. A lighting plan needs to be submitted.
3. Location of the pond is OK.
4. GPC would prefer to have no parking in front,but generally agree with the site plan.
There will be a 3' hedgerow along the northwest parking lot and mounding south along Cherry
Valley. Some members prefer continuous screening on north and west with mounding. f o- Lf 6. Access to property to the south is required and will be shown on the plat, is subject 1- A to change,however,according to the wishes of the GPC. 7. A monument sign without broken pediment is preferable,similar to Wendy's. 8. The front and side signs are too big.the maximum is 8 sq.ft,but that might be too small. 9. A 6' treelawn will be satisfactory with some modifications for sidewalks. 10. There will be a brick enclosure around the dumpster. Adjournment: 10:40 p.m. Next Meetings April 22d and May 6
6. Access to property to the south is required and will be shown on the plat, is subject 1-
A to change,however,according to the wishes of the GPC.
7. A monument sign without broken pediment is preferable,similar to Wendy's.
8. The front and side signs are too big.the maximum is 8 sq.ft,but that might be too
9. A 6' treelawn will be satisfactory with some modifications for sidewalks.
10. There will be a brick enclosure around the dumpster.
Adjournment: 10:40 p.m.
Next Meetings April 22d and May 6