Granville Community Calendar

GPC 09/22/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 22, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Richard Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Members ASbaslveangt:e, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),Bob Erhard, Bob Hersam, Larry Miller, Bill Acklin, Steve Miller, Joyce &Robert Munro, Jack Burris, Paula &Bob Hinebaugh, A. Bruce Henderson, Bob Seith, Bob Mason, Bob Pitt, Dorothy Garrett, Sue Sauer, Ned Roberts
Minutes of September 4, 1997:
Page 2, Line 5,is" more than 10 sq. ft Page 3, last line of (C),t o"the code irrespective of whether the IGA applied Fourth line up from bottom, a"nd those codes appeared to have withstood legal challenges."
Page 4, end of second paragraph, add 'Iother side of driveway. He can do so."To the motion following, add the fact that Mr. Salvage was the one opposed. Under Board of Education, last sen- tence, "Mr. Hickman can approve 1,
Page 5, end of (A),add "applicable in light of (C)T.o"the motion following (E) , change "BEYOND THIS SIGN" TO ON THE PROPERTY.
Page 8, before Lighting Guidelines, change to "further i f new language comes in."
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. SALVAGE SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Old Business:
First Presbyterian Church, 110 W. Broadway
Mr. Acklin reported that following meetings with the architect and a review of programming needs, they have come up with (1) modifications addressing concerns of the GPC. 2) They tried to
connect the addition more to the Christian Education (CE) Building than to the church. (3) Regarding massing, they moved the eastern 1fa,c0e00back and reduced size of the fellowship room and offices by sq. ft. 4) The eastern portico has been reduced. 5) Trees
identified for removal will be retained. 6) Building material will be textured stucco.
whichMr. Wilkenfeld began the discussion by asking about the roof, drawingseemed to be massive, and Mr. Miller, architect, said the further was "sort of out of scale and would be lower."Mr. Acklin described the windows as being a transition between the two buildings. Mr. Jack Burris added architectural commentary describ- ing the goal of maintaining historical touches. The unscored stucco makes a separate step between the two buildings.
Parking. BZBA has final say on variances, and Ms. Robertson suggested recommending that required spaces be waived in light of the fact, that it would be impossible to conform to code. Mr.
Salvage wanted it officially meet: parking noted that the application does not requirements and· BZBA approval 'is required. Mr: Stansbury did not want to state any recommendations, but merely note that it was discussed.
Ms. Robertson asked about a space on south elevation and was told that was the dishwashing area with storage on second floor. She would like to have windows added there.
Setback. The CE building is in the right of way, and the Village needs to grant approval on whether applicant can build in the ROW. Nothing has been done officially yet, although Mr. iHsisckumesan. did not anticipate any opposition but there may be legal The portico would be in the ROW.
The problem, Mr. Bob Seith stated, is that Locust is not a dedicated drive but a piece of the public square owned by all the citizens. It' s a vacating issue, a historic issue, and he wondered if this is an appropriate use of the public square. Although Mr. Seith was carefully listened to, this is not a setback issue. Dorothy Garrett thought we needed to address the fact of someone' s property value and the fact that he bought the property on the public square and then learned it was a public egress. Mr. Salvage stated that Village Council decided this was OK. Although members agreed that the ROW was not a real issue with GPC, it is hereby noted that it was discussed. Mr. Seith mentioned his architectural concerns, and details were provided by Mr. Miller. Mr. Seith would like more setback on tthhee wfaecsatdean. d feels there is insufficient degree of definition on He feels it needs more work. Mr. Salvage wondered why Mr. Seith apparently changed his mind, as the new plan would seem to satisfy his expectations better. Mr. Seith quoted his statement at last meeting, "I would prefer it not be there at all, but if it had to be there, I appreciate what is happening.M"uch of what is hsaimppielanring on the east is a big improvement and he is looking for a bit of life to the west side. Mr. Miller responded by saying the lower panel of the big glass window is not totally resolved yet. He has a problem with spandrels and too much glass historically.
Distance Between Buildings. They are not expanding on the west side and it' s in line with the CE building. Mr. Acklin said it would cover the existing sidewalk. Mr. Reyazi added that it' s more than 10' to Mr. Seith' s property line.
from Lot Coverage exceeds 50 per cent and would require a variance BZBA.
Massing. A subjective matter. It looks smaller than the first plan and the east entrance is not so grand. Mr. Myers thought this plan came a long way and the connection with CE building a big improvement. The smaller portico is good, and the ngelaigshsboprahnoeolsd. are better, the design fits better into the
Landscaping. Approval is needed by Tree and Landscape
2
Committee eventually.
Architectural Review Overlay.
met all criteria under 1161. 02.
Mr. Reyazi thought application
Alternative Zoning Certificate procedures. All information required for Phase Landscaping I have been submitted {1161. 03(d)1( )}. and engineering can be provided later.
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION, PHASE I OF AN ALTERNATIVE ZONING CERTIFICATE {1161, 03.D}M;R. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Greg Ross, IGA, 484 South Main Street
The Finding of Fact from the last meeting has to be adopted as formal decision of GPC. A few changes were made in the text provided:
B) End sentence with "Ordinances."
D) Change to "Granting a variance to the IGA would give it a special. privilege that is denied by the ordinances to other lands and structures in the same zoning district." E) Change to "in.vo.lv.ing the sign. In addition, it may be
nceacrerisesdary to move it when improvements to South Main Street are out. The general
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT FOR IGA SHOPPING CENTER AS MODIFIED. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road
Although nobody was present tonight, the existing sign is 3' 6"x6' and the proposed sign is the same. This sign would be over the maximum of 10 sq. ft, so would require a variance. The 720 hSaqs. ftc.ormreecntetiodned on the application is probably a typo but nobody it.
The application will remain tabled.
New Business:
Bob Hersam and Jeff Kobunski, 27, 28, and 29 Thornewood Subdivision
The applicants wish to build houses on three lots in Thorne- wood Subdivision. They would be 50' from ROW, which places them in vthideedTC. OD. There is village water available, but sewer must be pro- because Mr. Hersam said there is one house there already, and back. of the topography, the three must be built less than 100' Mr. Hersam and Bob Erhard described the possible sewer connections and said it is still undecided. Before working
further, they wanted a positive reaction from GPC.
Mr. Myers stated that he would like to see a graphic depiction. The purpose of the TCOD is to protect and preserve the visual qualities and rural character of Granville, and it would not appear that this application would adhere to 1176 requirements in
3
4
granting a 50' setback. Mr. Salvage stated it would be hard to force the houses to be set farther back.
Mr. Erhard thought this would still limit access points curb and openings and promote architectural continuity. Mr. Wilkenfeld
does not think that is quite true and wants to adhere to the code. bBuuiltd.Mr. Salvage stated that would make it hard for people to These houses would be above the level of the street and many trees would remain. Mr. Myers did not know how we would know that without more information on what impact would occur. He wants to see a proposed grading plan and to know what the impact would be at 90' setback. He would rather leave the requirement at 100' unless applicants can show a grade impact plan. Mr. Erhard said aPblaonust are incomplete because they wanted to know what GPC thought the idea.
Mr. Stansbury asked whether they could design a house to fit in the land within the TCOD. Mr. Wilkenfeld added that he heard
George Parker speak to the Land Conservancy about creative land planning and clustering. Mr. Myers thought houses could be designed to fit on a slope, but these drawings are not it.
Mr. Herson urged members to view the site. The concept for
Thornewood was from the 19605 and since then the Village added TCOD requirements. Mr. Erhard said clustering has not been considered but there may be restrictions with single-family housesMY.-. -Myers thought that even with rezoning, clustering on the flat land would be an improvement and should be considered.
Mr. Erhard wants to table the application, and Ms. Montgomery thought the next step should be a work session.
Mr. Salvage the owner should have the right to build on his lots within the regulations, and GPC needs to come up with a way wfohratheivmer.to build houses, whether clustering, varying TCOD, or
Mr. Wilkenfeld would like to see color photos of the sites.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Wildwood Park, Granville Recreation Commission
Ned Roberts explained that the applicant wish to install orecscturopoymings with storage in the north end of existing shelter house, a 24' x 8' area. This is in the TCOD and Village water and sewer are available. It will be buff color split face cement block.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville IGA, 484 South Main Street
The applicant wishes to install a temporary 39. 02 sq. ft.
4
banner Approvaflor one week below the existing shopping center sign. promotionhsa.s been granted in the past for banners for special
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MidO-hio Development, 1943 NewarkG- ranville Road
Mr. Reyazi stated that according to 1175.05, any change in SBD
needs to be approved by GPC. This is a permitted use and it complies with ordinance.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED.
Mr. Salvage does not think this should ever have come to GPC because a zoning certificate is to build a new building, but Ms· Robertson disagreed and stated that we should be glad Mr. Reyazi has read the code so carefully.
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Lighting Guidelines. Guidelines will be first on the next agenda.
GPC Rules and Regulations".Again, read Section VIII.F. for next time.
Finding of Fact
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR ITEM A UNDER
OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS B, C, AND D UNDER NEW BUSINESS AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MS. ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND FINDING
OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:
Next Meeting:
10: 30 p.m.
October 20. No meeting on October 13 or 27.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 09/08/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 8, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Richard Montg6mery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Members ASbaslveangt:e, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel)G, reg Ross, Art Morrow, Steve Cramer, Kevin Cramer, Eloise Dezwarte, Katherine Blake, Mary Albright, Bob Parsley, LeaAnn. Parsley, Doug Kaiser, Shawn Redman, Rochelle Steinberg, Robin Bartlett, Dave Banan, Scott Pryor, GBaurebnatrhaerM, cfarland, Larry Dickson, Joe Hickman, Judy. and Dennis Fred Anderson
Minutes of August 11, 1997:
Page 1, under Paragraph (1),change "The only" to "A."Page 2, second paragraph, 4th line, change p" ossible" to "preferred. " . Third paragraph, change to "Conceptually, Ms. Robertson concludes that Mr. Reagan' s advice is to think of the plan as an addition to the Education Building."Same paragraph last 3 lines, change to "a third building would look out of place between the two existing buildings. " 4th paragraph, 5th line, change to "portico; it should not be two stories high."
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. MYERS SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Old Business:
Stephen and Katherine Blake, 212 East Elm
The applicants received partial approval in May to restore their home and will follow the alternative Zoning Certificate procedure as described in 1161. 03(d).Now the applicants wish to convert the section to the east, facing the alley, into a screen porch and add a new door and two new windows to the rear. The windows to be
removed from the front will be installed in the back, and new windows will be put in the front.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Greg Ross, IGA, 484 South Main Street
Mr. Reyazi reported that this application for a sign was remanded to GPC by Village Council after its denial by GPC, stating that the Finding of Fact was inadequate in conveying the infor- mation GPC had considered in arriving at its decision. The applicant wishes to replace the existing 57 sq. ft. ground sign with another of the same size at the same location, in the TCOD. Because of size and height, it is a nonconforming use, and the business has 113 sq. ft. of total signage. This should be tchoinssidinesretadncaer,equest for a variance from the sign requirements. In under 1189. 10 GPC handles this situation.
L.
Mr. :Stansbury stated that· under· 1189·, our. -reasoning toward··· denial was: (1) any change made must be brought to a new sign in nonconformance into consistency with existing code, including 444 changing lettering on the sign; (2) it is more than 12' high and it is.410 sq.ft; (3)t,hey can only have one ground sign per lot and 3!it sthqe.rfet.are two; (4) maximum signage is 24 sq.ft, and this is 113
Mr. Art Morrow, attorney for IGA, stated that the application did not get presented right to GPC. The application did not in- clude a variance request. A Finding of Fact, conclusions, and reasons for the decision are required. All the applicant wants to dimoprisovecmhaenngte. the lettering on the sign, which would clearly be an He could have applied for a new sign but because of the expense and visibility, he preferred to apply for a variance. Mr. Morrow does not believe the change would affect health, safety,
and general welfare of the public. He cited criteria under
1147. 03: (a) special circumstances are that the business sits quite
a way from the road and needs a sign; (b) a literal interpretation of the zoning code would deprive applicant of rights enjoyed by othersa-l-l they are asking for is a change in lettering; (c) special circumstances do not result from actions of applicantt-h-ey have not done anything to this point; (d) this would not grant special privileges to applicant; (e) the nearest residence is
Briner' s, and they cannot see the business from their house. Mr. Ross added that he was told to wait because of the Certi- fied situation, but that will be a long time. IGA would like to
make a change now.
Mr. Wilkenfeld stated that (1) we are trying to encourage pCeeorptliefietdo change nonconforming old signs to adhere, as with the sign. If we accept this for IGA, we must do so for everyone. 2) The sign is in the right of way, and the Village is liable in case of injuries. 3) the Village has potential for
gsirgannt money which will allow us to upgrade that whole area, and the or its location may have to be changed anyway. Mr. Morrow
traekspeonded that the grant money has not been awarded yet, and may a long time. He added that Certified is much more visible than the IGA. All the applicant wants ted-aisEfm th-ee--- regulations.
Ms. Robertson found it interesting that Mr. Morrow brought up visibility. Somebody told her that the sign was too high and Ms. Robertson is not sure the sign is doing what IGA wants it to do. Mr. Ross said they want to capture some Rt. 661 business as well as local traffic. Ms. Robertson would like to work toward a sign
everybody can agree on and which would conform with the code. People working on the sign code thought about that sign and others and were concerned about them, so it was written with the hope that as People replaced or changed signs, they would do so meeting code. Maybe another type of sign would be more visible and more con- forming.
Ms. Montgomery thought there are special circumstances because it is part of the whole multi-tenant sign that advertises the other businesses. Mr. Salvage added that the TCOD was created after IGA was annexed, and if it were not in the TCOD, there would be no problem. Mr. Reyazi disagreed, but Mr. Salvage does not see a big
2
C
3
problem.
Mr. Myers looked at the criteria to be considered in 1147. 03:
A) Special circumstances or conditions exist Peculiar which are to the land or structure involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. According to Mr. Morrow, circumstances appear to be the location of the business and the fact that we should not interpret vthaeriacnocdee. in the manner it is written and we should grant a
B) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. Certified had to conform to the
1
1. I. ordinance. enjoyed ijoes il.erai in,erpretation deprive 11*uL 11.9.- 6-8 by others (like Certified)w?ould Certified enjoy other rights when they came in under the same ordinances? M(r. Morrow thought not.)
C) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. The IGA did not place their store in that location. Mr. Morrow responded that the sign was in the township and when annexed, it nonconformed. Mr. Myers thought in that case the business should carry through the criteria which
awnonueldxaatpiopnly. to the code eucn though the IGA -di=d**a*pp=ly for
r 4
D) Granting of the variance will ot confer on the applicant
any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. If we were to grant a variance here and then deny a similar request by Certified or others, that might set a precedent along that strip. Certified
might like as many square feet as the .IGA sign has. E) Granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the Persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. Having the sign in the right of way is a major obstruction under the health, safety, and general welfare criterion, and liability issues may occur.
More discussion ensued about the multi-business sign, the 24 sq. ft. limit, the height of the sign, total signage, monument signs, the other sign across the drive (Mr. Ross said that will be removed)a,nd the location in the right of way. Mr. Reyazi did not want to make the right of way an issue here. Liability is a con- bceilrint,y,he stated, but this can be obtained by a release of lia- issue eitahned rh.e did not want to make improvements to Main Street an and Ms. Robertson thought the sign could be designed now moved later on if necessary. We could plan ahead.
Ms. Robertson said they researched other communities with similar circumstances when the sign code was written, and tre have been no liability issues arise. The code was designed to make j the area more attractive. She suggested redesigning the sign to / mreadkuecea pheaiigrhot.f signs side by side rather than atop each other to j
10s t- )-, 5.'L .=/
frtif<41
Mr. Morrow stated that the last there- in»' sentence of 1189. 04(k) was not 1995··,·T,h:e' sentence limists people, ,from, using their s-igns and should be removed. Mr. Myers respectfully disagreed. Mr.
Wilkenfeld thought a work session would be appropriate. Ms. Robertson said there is a precedent for multi-businesses sign at Elm and Main Streets where they had to conform.
Compromise could be possible, members thought. Mr. Morrow
does not see how a variance could be achieved at this point. Mr.
Ross asked whether he could keep the multi-business sign as is and leave in the one on the other side 12- 0
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. MR. SALVAGE
SECONDED, AND THE VOTE WAS 1 IN FAVOR AND 4 OPPOSED. CjS-5*0
New Business:
Steve Cramer, 235 East Broadway
Mr. Cramer wishes to install an adjustable basketball back- board and hoop on the edge of the driveway. This is considered a structure because of its permanent location. MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Lawrence and Marie Dickson, Lots 147 and 148 Bryn Du Woods
The Dicksons wish to acquire a 0. 16 acre parcel of the adjoin- ing property, which would lead to Lot 147 being reduced to 0. 71 acres and Lot 148 increasing to 2. 99 acres. Mr. Dickson said the
Parcel is a small triangle which related more to the Dickson property than to ·the neighbor 's. GPC members determined that the
request was for a minor modification.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Board of Education, 130 North Granger Street
Mr. Joe Hickman stated that the school district has submitted
an application for demolition of part of the old school. The applicant has already obtained a demolition permit. The bids are out and it appears to be affordable. Community meetings have been held and were generally positively received. He cited a letter
from neighbor Robin Bartlett in support of the demolition. Ms. Robertson asked about asbestos removal, and Mr. Hickman said there are set regulations to be followed in the process. It will be done first.
Mr. Reya·34 can approve this with GPC approval, which was granted. 0.
Scott Ryan, Leader Printing, 56 Westgate Drive
The applicant wishes to replace the existing ground sign, which was damaged by storms, with a new 9 sq. ft. ground sign.
i--
4
There are other signs which area. T·h-e,e«xist,ing sign ..is appear to exceed maximum allowable sign noneon-f·orming' and· any,"change must "bringthe
sign into conformance. Mr. Ryan said the old sign was quite high and ugly and the storm broke it apart. It could be made to
resemble the navy and gold signs at Erinwood, the same size as the old sign but lower down, maybe 4' high. It' s just to show people where to turn into the business.
Mr. Reyazi said there are three signs there now, in the side, back, and front, and Mr. Ryan said the homely building is enhanced by signage. Members agreed that they are only considering the sign that blew down, not total signage at this point. The criteria were applied to the application:
A) Special circumstances or conditions exist which are Peculiar to the land or structure involved and which are not
dapisptlircicabtsle. Ttohisothceorndlaitniodns oisr nsotrtucatpuprelicsabinlethie:s*aSme-e-r€32ltZ12y- --:-7-=-- j»6*1 C+C3-- Ej0»»35'*»
B) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. There are special circumstances under CSD. This is not in the TCOD. Although 1189. 04(k)
required compliance, members did not think this application should refer to all other signage. This sign would be in compliance.
Approval of this sign would not relieve applicant of bringing other signs into compliance at a later date.
C) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. The sign was damaged by a storm or an act of nature.
D) Granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant
anY undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. We are looking for
compliance on the property. Condition placed on approval is that compliance be achieved with each new sign application.
E) Granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the Pvaerrsiaonnscer.esiding or working within the vicinity of the proposed of The sign needs to be at least one foot outside the right way.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE SUBJECT
TO (1) APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY APPROVE 0l/ ANY OTHER OF THE NONCONFORMING SIGNS BEYOND THISS-G+N, AND (2)
THAT THE SIGN BE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. MS.
ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Judy and Dennis Guenther, 120 West Broadway, Gift Basket Shop
in The applicants wish to refurbish and change the existing sign front of the property, install an awning with a sign on it to the rear, paint the exterior of the house, install flower boxes in
5
front and rear of instail-" the structure, install a picket fence, and approvedlibgy hBZtBf-iAx.tures ron the· buirlding .-T·h' e'"' n·-onconforming u-se-<was ' -
Ms. Guenther explained that the color of the house will be pale yellow with white trim and green shutters. The finished side
of the picket fence will have to face the neighbors. Signs are a
separate issue and a separate application.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF EVERYTHING ON APPLICATION
EXCEPT SIGNS ; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Because the business is in a residential district, the signs require a variance. Signs are not permitted in residential
districts. But the sign in front has been there for many years as a nonconforming sign. Since BZBA already gave permission to have the business, the sign needs to be approved. Only one sign per· business is permitted, but the awning sign would be facing the alley and not very visible from the front. Variances would be for
the size of the sign, the number of signs, and the fact that it is bnoutildoinngth.e bCuoinldsiidnegr,ataioltnhough there is not room for a sign on the of the criteria is as follows:
A) Special circumstances or conditions exist which are Peculiar to the land or structure involved and which are not
applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. This is a nonconforming commercial use in a residential neighborhood, which BZBA approved. Special circumstances are the configuration of the building which precludes a sign on it.
B) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. Mr. Pinkerton next door recently
changed his sign.
C) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. The applicants bought the property in its present location.
D) Granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant
any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands
or structures in the same zoning district. Since Mr. Pinkerton got
approval for his sign, no undue privileges are present here.
E) Granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the vPaerrsiaonnscer.esiding or working within the vicinity of the proposed No adverse effects are apparent.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE REQUEST FOR VARIANCES ON SIGNS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Calvin Shaw, 137 North Plum Street
6
The applicant ·would, like .to enclose.the :perch in ·the ·northwest '· ··-
Corner of his house so that The a washer and dryer can be placed there. house.space above the porch is occupied by the second story of the
Mr. Fred Anderson, contractor, said there are several mistakes on the application. The total area to be enclosed is 50 square feet (10'x5')n,ot 150. There will be no digging; it' s on a concrete slab. There will be a 36" exterior door and a 36"x30" window. They could use either vinyl siding or lap siding in front. The old siding is no longer available. Consensus agreed that vinyl would be acceptable.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH VINYL; MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road
The applicant wishes to replace existing sign with a new 10' ground sign bigger than the maximum permitted. A variance is required because it is in a residential district. No one was
present to describe the sign, and since the application says it is
720 sq. ft, members chose to table application.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION; MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Douglas J.-Kaiser
Mr. Kaiser explained that his wife Susan has been operating a catering home occupation since 1990. She offers cooking
demonstration classes, but the business has increased and she would like to expand her operation. It would require more parking and bringing in an additional employee. There are no suitable Commercial locations, and the Kaisers offered to buy a 1. 7-acre lot on Newark-Granville and Fern Hill with contingency to obtain approval for the business within sixty days. Neither the Village
nor the Township allows a home to be turned into a business. Mr. Kaiser would like to initiate a motion to add cooking schools to htheearlinisgt. of conditional uses under 1181 and arrange for a public
residMenr.tiaRleyazi thought it possible to add a conditional use to a district. The business would be attractive to Granville. The definition would be specific, i.e.,cooking school, and define that precisely.
Mr. Salvage thought this would be hard to write. He feels
Strongly about converting residences into business districts. We have a VBD so that we can restrict residential areas. He sees this
as a beginning of an erosion process. Mr. Myers stated such an idea should be site-specific, for it' s hard to change the overall
7
code. A specific property is precise.. different because you can be very and write .t.hat into the .text ·as .a..contract zoning to ,PUD Mr. Reyazi thought it easier to modify PUD. Mr. Myers added that if we change home occupation uses, there are other things we cannot anticipate if we make it general. Mr. Reyazi thought you could set
an initiative to change the zoning or think about it and talk about it at a later meeting.
Mr. Kaiser could come in with a cooking school definition and list the activities to be done there. Mr. Stansbury said we could limit the number of employees, etc.,but he is disinclined to change the ordinances. Mr. Wilkenfeld feels there other avenues, i. e.,SBD, where there are other lots available. Mr. Salvage would
prefer looking at such applications on a site-by-site basis. This would require BZBA approval.
Consensus was that GPC should not initiate any kind of recommendation to VC. GPC will explore this further a€* language new comes in. f
Lighting Guidelines
Mr. Reyazi included drawings of what sites would look like in residential and commercial streets. Please examine these and bring in your comments.
GPC Rules and Regulations"
Mr. Reyazi provided some language regarding ex parte contact for your review. Mr. Hurst is not entirely satisfied with Section VIIIF, so read it and bring in your suggestions.
Finding of Fact
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR BLAKE AND ITEMS B THROUGH F UNDER NEW BUSINESS AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MS. ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:
Next Meetings:
10: 55 p. m.
September 22 and October 13, a holiday.
Respe6tfully submitted,
Betty Allen
8

GPC 10/29/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 20, 1997
Minutes
I..p..1*.:,'*... . . . ¢., k 4....-f .'...... .·,Z,.KZ'r- I'I.I-.7, 2:'- -u ..CL' T.., ' . '11n.. r. .':, ,. T„,·14-:I -.,1,; 2-· ,- . Members Present: Peter Marshall for Maxine Montgomery, Lyn Robertson, Richard Salvage, Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: Keith Myers, Gary Stansbury Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel)N,ed Roberts, Joellen Brown, John Compton, Ron Madison, George Fackler, Frits B. Rizor,
1 „Tim Snider
us1 *18 2A-/
Minutes of September 22, 1997:
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED AND MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Old Business:
First Presbyterian Church, 110 W. Broadway
At the last GPC meeting approval was granted for Phase I of this application. The Finding of Fact has to be adopted as the formal decision of the Commission.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED0 *ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR PHASE I OF THE 8PpLCATIOSN F-.O*RMAL_FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
John Compton, 341 East Broadway
Mr. Compton wishes to attach a 25' x214'." x 16' high garage at the rear of his house. Materials will match siding and shingles. The south exterior, which will function as retaining wall, will be ncootncbreetevisbilboclek afrnodmrethpelace an old retaining wall. The garage will street.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Joellen and Larry Brown, 348 North Granger Street
The Browns wish to construct a 12' x23' wooden deck on the back of the house with access ramp and add railings to the front porch and stairs leading to it.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
David Sanor, 325 East College Street
Mr. Sanor wishes to replace the roof with shingles and install a 30' x30' skylight in the south side of the house. He is not here
tonight, but Mr. Reyazi explained that he does not need a zoning certificate for replacement of the roof but does need one for the skylight, which will be in the back and not visible from the street. The roof will be of laminated architectural shingles with
wood shake roof '' »-"- M-'R--'W.» "* a'ppearance and pewter gray color. LKENFELDM- OVED„TO, APPROVE«A, PPLICATIONM ;'"S' ·R.:O*B"ERTSON 4*... 1...
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Allen &Thelma Evans, Ronald &Rdnate Madison, 85 Pinehurst Drive
r 2 r-./*& 422--------
eventMura.llyMapduiston said that he would like to<Ethe property and up a two-story garage. Mr. Reyazi said that a condition -8f the subdivision approval is that it must be part of ltahnedploacrkceedl . in front, the Madison lot, so that it won' t be
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITION
THAT THE_SUBDIVIDED LOT BECOMES PART OF THE MADISON_PROPERTY;
MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVEb.
Henry and Lawanna Luther, 233 South Pearl Street
The applicants wish to install a new fence, but there is al- ready a fence there on two sides, which will produce a gap. MS. Luther has not spoken to the neighbors about removal of their fence, but she will do so. The finished side must face outward.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITION
THAT THE NEW FENCE ON THE NORTH SIDE AND THE WEST SIDE REPLACE
KISTING FENCES_BELQNGING TO NEIGHBORS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Sessions
George Fackler, 2326 Newark-Granville Road
Mr. Fackler is anticipating increased business at his nursery. and would like to propose a "gorgeous site improvement" to comple- ment the Fackler property across the street. Fritz Rizor, general Pmlaenaasgienrg, . staTtheedy that they want to clean up the property and make it would replace the chainlink fence with a 54" 4-rail fence. They would replace the residence with a barn or lath house, and build a greenhouse. There would be 22 parking spaces. They
will cluster the tractors to the side, and they intend to maintain the sign there presently. They would like to avoid any variances if Possible because they are asking for less than they already have. Mr. Reyazi does not think GPC can grant anything not consistent with the ordinances, so he will clarify this. Mr. Fackler said they will need to take down 7 spruce trees and leave 2 and will mill those trees and use them in the barn.
Mr. Reyazi said Mr. Fackler needs to work it out in the context of new SBD requirements regarding height and distance from ROW. Mr. Salvage encouraged him to minimize damage to vegetation. „A
Items requiring further study: 1) provide written tS@* 6 »cY-1504'
0 V CurrCErini-:Trg use of buildings, (2) distance to the ROW lines; TCOD is ' 100' back, (3) match up the project with design standards and ordinances, (4) check on height of buildings.
George Fackler, 1960 Newark-Granville Road
1
2
The, .a. pplication ··f·or a- development has been«tabled ·since· Novem- ber, and Mr. Tim Snider, from Renier Construction, reviewed the Project. He brought up some of the issues listed in a letter from
Mr. Reyazi to Mr. Snider on July 9, 1997:
Roofline Height: The limit wds 301, according to Mr. Reyazi, but their plans measure 37' and they would like to keep it there because of the nature of the architecture. The new SBD states 1%
fcloodoer.s Mwsit.hoRuotbesrptseocnif -ic height, but they are working under the old c *j»Lf, under the suggest@4 that if thg_applicants wish to Brk new code, that would be acceptable.
Setback: The minimum setback for TCOD along Newark-Granville
Road is 100',but the plans show 70'. Their intention was to
screen the parking. Mr. Wilkenfeld preferred that they adhere to the 100' minimum. Mr. Salvage wanted to know what GPC said before. The offices across the street have 70' setbacks. Mr.
Snider wants to make the buildings easily accessible. He said they wstoauyldwcitohnsider putting in a wider sidewalk, of asphalt, if they can the 70' setback.
Landscaping: The Tree and Landscape Committee has approved the plans.
Lighting: They will .epoiate the new lighting guidelines.
Joint Access: Needs_more study. Mr. Reyazi showed a design
suggested by the Master Plan Review Committee.
Signal Analysis: Mr. Marshall said these are always done by
the village.
ect: GPC members asked for further information regarding the proj- 1) look at minutes of previous work sessions, (2) look into
the setback at Murphy' s properties, (3) look at development plans for Galway Drive, especially for setbacks.
Lighting Guidelines. Guidelines will be postponed until we have all members present.
GPC Rules and Regulations".Postponed until everyone is here.
Field Guide to American Houses. All members will receive a copy.
Finding of Fact
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR ITEM A UNDER
OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS A THROUGH E UNDER NEW BUSINESS AS
FORMAL FINDING OF FACT WITH LISTED CONDITIONS. MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Adjournment: 9: 20 p.m.
Next Meetings: November 10 and November November 24.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
f---
3

GPC 09/08/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 8, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Richard Montg6mery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Members ASbaslveangt:e, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel)G, reg Ross, Art Morrow, Steve Cramer, Kevin Cramer, Eloise Dezwarte, Katherine Blake, Mary Albright, Bob Parsley, LeaAnn. Parsley, Doug Kaiser, Shawn Redman, Rochelle Steinberg, Robin Bartlett, Dave Banan, Scott Pryor, GBaurebnatrhaerM, cfarland, Larry Dickson, Joe Hickman, Judy. and Dennis Fred Anderson
Minutes of August 11, 1997:
Page 1, under Paragraph (1),change "The only" to "A."Page 2, second paragraph, 4th line, change p" ossible" to "preferred. " . Third paragraph, change to "Conceptually, Ms. Robertson concludes that Mr. Reagan' s advice is to think of the plan as an addition to the Education Building."Same paragraph last 3 lines, change to "a third building would look out of place between the two existing buildings. " 4th paragraph, 5th line, change to "portico; it should not be two stories high."
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. MYERS SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Old Business:
Stephen and Katherine Blake, 212 East Elm
The applicants received partial approval in May to restore their home and will follow the alternative Zoning Certificate procedure as described in 1161. 03(d).Now the applicants wish to convert the section to the east, facing the alley, into a screen porch and add a new door and two new windows to the rear. The windows to be
removed from the front will be installed in the back, and new windows will be put in the front.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Greg Ross, IGA, 484 South Main Street
Mr. Reyazi reported that this application for a sign was remanded to GPC by Village Council after its denial by GPC, stating that the Finding of Fact was inadequate in conveying the infor- mation GPC had considered in arriving at its decision. The applicant wishes to replace the existing 57 sq. ft. ground sign with another of the same size at the same location, in the TCOD. Because of size and height, it is a nonconforming use, and the business has 113 sq. ft. of total signage. This should be tchoinssidinesretadncaer,equest for a variance from the sign requirements. In under 1189. 10 GPC handles this situation.
L.
Mr. :Stansbury stated that· under· 1189·, our. -reasoning toward··· denial was: (1) any change made must be brought to a new sign in nonconformance into consistency with existing code, including 444 changing lettering on the sign; (2) it is more than 12' high and it is.410 sq.ft; (3)t,hey can only have one ground sign per lot and 3!it sthqe.rfet.are two; (4) maximum signage is 24 sq.ft, and this is 113
Mr. Art Morrow, attorney for IGA, stated that the application did not get presented right to GPC. The application did not in- clude a variance request. A Finding of Fact, conclusions, and reasons for the decision are required. All the applicant wants to dimoprisovecmhaenngte. the lettering on the sign, which would clearly be an He could have applied for a new sign but because of the expense and visibility, he preferred to apply for a variance. Mr. Morrow does not believe the change would affect health, safety,
and general welfare of the public. He cited criteria under
1147. 03: (a) special circumstances are that the business sits quite
a way from the road and needs a sign; (b) a literal interpretation of the zoning code would deprive applicant of rights enjoyed by othersa-l-l they are asking for is a change in lettering; (c) special circumstances do not result from actions of applicantt-h-ey have not done anything to this point; (d) this would not grant special privileges to applicant; (e) the nearest residence is
Briner' s, and they cannot see the business from their house. Mr. Ross added that he was told to wait because of the Certi- fied situation, but that will be a long time. IGA would like to
make a change now.
Mr. Wilkenfeld stated that (1) we are trying to encourage pCeeorptliefietdo change nonconforming old signs to adhere, as with the sign. If we accept this for IGA, we must do so for everyone. 2) The sign is in the right of way, and the Village is liable in case of injuries. 3) the Village has potential for
gsirgannt money which will allow us to upgrade that whole area, and the or its location may have to be changed anyway. Mr. Morrow
traekspeonded that the grant money has not been awarded yet, and may a long time. He added that Certified is much more visible than the IGA. All the applicant wants ted-aisEfm th-ee--- regulations.
Ms. Robertson found it interesting that Mr. Morrow brought up visibility. Somebody told her that the sign was too high and Ms. Robertson is not sure the sign is doing what IGA wants it to do. Mr. Ross said they want to capture some Rt. 661 business as well as local traffic. Ms. Robertson would like to work toward a sign
everybody can agree on and which would conform with the code. People working on the sign code thought about that sign and others and were concerned about them, so it was written with the hope that as People replaced or changed signs, they would do so meeting code. Maybe another type of sign would be more visible and more con- forming.
Ms. Montgomery thought there are special circumstances because it is part of the whole multi-tenant sign that advertises the other businesses. Mr. Salvage added that the TCOD was created after IGA was annexed, and if it were not in the TCOD, there would be no problem. Mr. Reyazi disagreed, but Mr. Salvage does not see a big
2
C
3
problem.
Mr. Myers looked at the criteria to be considered in 1147. 03:
A) Special circumstances or conditions exist Peculiar which are to the land or structure involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. According to Mr. Morrow, circumstances appear to be the location of the business and the fact that we should not interpret vthaeriacnocdee. in the manner it is written and we should grant a
B) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. Certified had to conform to the
1
1. I. ordinance. enjoyed ijoes il.erai in,erpretation deprive 11*uL 11.9.- 6-8 by others (like Certified)w?ould Certified enjoy other rights when they came in under the same ordinances? M(r. Morrow thought not.)
C) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. The IGA did not place their store in that location. Mr. Morrow responded that the sign was in the township and when annexed, it nonconformed. Mr. Myers thought in that case the business should carry through the criteria which
awnonueldxaatpiopnly. to the code eucn though the IGA -di=d**a*pp=ly for
r 4
D) Granting of the variance will ot confer on the applicant
any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. If we were to grant a variance here and then deny a similar request by Certified or others, that might set a precedent along that strip. Certified
might like as many square feet as the .IGA sign has. E) Granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the Persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. Having the sign in the right of way is a major obstruction under the health, safety, and general welfare criterion, and liability issues may occur.
More discussion ensued about the multi-business sign, the 24 sq. ft. limit, the height of the sign, total signage, monument signs, the other sign across the drive (Mr. Ross said that will be removed)a,nd the location in the right of way. Mr. Reyazi did not want to make the right of way an issue here. Liability is a con- bceilrint,y,he stated, but this can be obtained by a release of lia- issue eitahned rh.e did not want to make improvements to Main Street an and Ms. Robertson thought the sign could be designed now moved later on if necessary. We could plan ahead.
Ms. Robertson said they researched other communities with similar circumstances when the sign code was written, and tre have been no liability issues arise. The code was designed to make j the area more attractive. She suggested redesigning the sign to / mreadkuecea pheaiigrhot.f signs side by side rather than atop each other to j
10s t- )-, 5.'L .=/
frtif<41
Mr. Morrow stated that the last there- in»' sentence of 1189. 04(k) was not 1995··,·T,h:e' sentence limists people, ,from, using their s-igns and should be removed. Mr. Myers respectfully disagreed. Mr.
Wilkenfeld thought a work session would be appropriate. Ms. Robertson said there is a precedent for multi-businesses sign at Elm and Main Streets where they had to conform.
Compromise could be possible, members thought. Mr. Morrow
does not see how a variance could be achieved at this point. Mr.
Ross asked whether he could keep the multi-business sign as is and leave in the one on the other side 12- 0
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. MR. SALVAGE
SECONDED, AND THE VOTE WAS 1 IN FAVOR AND 4 OPPOSED. CjS-5*0
New Business:
Steve Cramer, 235 East Broadway
Mr. Cramer wishes to install an adjustable basketball back- board and hoop on the edge of the driveway. This is considered a structure because of its permanent location. MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Lawrence and Marie Dickson, Lots 147 and 148 Bryn Du Woods
The Dicksons wish to acquire a 0. 16 acre parcel of the adjoin- ing property, which would lead to Lot 147 being reduced to 0. 71 acres and Lot 148 increasing to 2. 99 acres. Mr. Dickson said the
Parcel is a small triangle which related more to the Dickson property than to ·the neighbor 's. GPC members determined that the
request was for a minor modification.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Board of Education, 130 North Granger Street
Mr. Joe Hickman stated that the school district has submitted
an application for demolition of part of the old school. The applicant has already obtained a demolition permit. The bids are out and it appears to be affordable. Community meetings have been held and were generally positively received. He cited a letter
from neighbor Robin Bartlett in support of the demolition. Ms. Robertson asked about asbestos removal, and Mr. Hickman said there are set regulations to be followed in the process. It will be done first.
Mr. Reya·34 can approve this with GPC approval, which was granted. 0.
Scott Ryan, Leader Printing, 56 Westgate Drive
The applicant wishes to replace the existing ground sign, which was damaged by storms, with a new 9 sq. ft. ground sign.
i--
4
There are other signs which area. T·h-e,e«xist,ing sign ..is appear to exceed maximum allowable sign noneon-f·orming' and· any,"change must "bringthe
sign into conformance. Mr. Ryan said the old sign was quite high and ugly and the storm broke it apart. It could be made to
resemble the navy and gold signs at Erinwood, the same size as the old sign but lower down, maybe 4' high. It' s just to show people where to turn into the business.
Mr. Reyazi said there are three signs there now, in the side, back, and front, and Mr. Ryan said the homely building is enhanced by signage. Members agreed that they are only considering the sign that blew down, not total signage at this point. The criteria were applied to the application:
A) Special circumstances or conditions exist which are Peculiar to the land or structure involved and which are not
dapisptlircicabtsle. Ttohisothceorndlaitniodns oisr nsotrtucatpuprelicsabinlethie:s*aSme-e-r€32ltZ12y- --:-7-=-- j»6*1 C+C3-- Ej0»»35'*»
B) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. There are special circumstances under CSD. This is not in the TCOD. Although 1189. 04(k)
required compliance, members did not think this application should refer to all other signage. This sign would be in compliance.
Approval of this sign would not relieve applicant of bringing other signs into compliance at a later date.
C) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. The sign was damaged by a storm or an act of nature.
D) Granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant
anY undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. We are looking for
compliance on the property. Condition placed on approval is that compliance be achieved with each new sign application.
E) Granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the Pvaerrsiaonnscer.esiding or working within the vicinity of the proposed of The sign needs to be at least one foot outside the right way.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE SUBJECT
TO (1) APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY APPROVE 0l/ ANY OTHER OF THE NONCONFORMING SIGNS BEYOND THISS-G+N, AND (2)
THAT THE SIGN BE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. MS.
ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Judy and Dennis Guenther, 120 West Broadway, Gift Basket Shop
in The applicants wish to refurbish and change the existing sign front of the property, install an awning with a sign on it to the rear, paint the exterior of the house, install flower boxes in
5
front and rear of instail-" the structure, install a picket fence, and approvedlibgy hBZtBf-iAx.tures ron the· buirlding .-T·h' e'"' n·-onconforming u-se-<was ' -
Ms. Guenther explained that the color of the house will be pale yellow with white trim and green shutters. The finished side
of the picket fence will have to face the neighbors. Signs are a
separate issue and a separate application.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF EVERYTHING ON APPLICATION
EXCEPT SIGNS ; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Because the business is in a residential district, the signs require a variance. Signs are not permitted in residential
districts. But the sign in front has been there for many years as a nonconforming sign. Since BZBA already gave permission to have the business, the sign needs to be approved. Only one sign per· business is permitted, but the awning sign would be facing the alley and not very visible from the front. Variances would be for
the size of the sign, the number of signs, and the fact that it is bnoutildoinngth.e bCuoinldsiidnegr,ataioltnhough there is not room for a sign on the of the criteria is as follows:
A) Special circumstances or conditions exist which are Peculiar to the land or structure involved and which are not
applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. This is a nonconforming commercial use in a residential neighborhood, which BZBA approved. Special circumstances are the configuration of the building which precludes a sign on it.
B) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. Mr. Pinkerton next door recently
changed his sign.
C) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. The applicants bought the property in its present location.
D) Granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant
any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands
or structures in the same zoning district. Since Mr. Pinkerton got
approval for his sign, no undue privileges are present here.
E) Granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the vPaerrsiaonnscer.esiding or working within the vicinity of the proposed No adverse effects are apparent.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE REQUEST FOR VARIANCES ON SIGNS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Calvin Shaw, 137 North Plum Street
6
The applicant ·would, like .to enclose.the :perch in ·the ·northwest '· ··-
Corner of his house so that The a washer and dryer can be placed there. house.space above the porch is occupied by the second story of the
Mr. Fred Anderson, contractor, said there are several mistakes on the application. The total area to be enclosed is 50 square feet (10'x5')n,ot 150. There will be no digging; it' s on a concrete slab. There will be a 36" exterior door and a 36"x30" window. They could use either vinyl siding or lap siding in front. The old siding is no longer available. Consensus agreed that vinyl would be acceptable.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH VINYL; MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road
The applicant wishes to replace existing sign with a new 10' ground sign bigger than the maximum permitted. A variance is required because it is in a residential district. No one was
present to describe the sign, and since the application says it is
720 sq. ft, members chose to table application.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION; MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Douglas J.-Kaiser
Mr. Kaiser explained that his wife Susan has been operating a catering home occupation since 1990. She offers cooking
demonstration classes, but the business has increased and she would like to expand her operation. It would require more parking and bringing in an additional employee. There are no suitable Commercial locations, and the Kaisers offered to buy a 1. 7-acre lot on Newark-Granville and Fern Hill with contingency to obtain approval for the business within sixty days. Neither the Village
nor the Township allows a home to be turned into a business. Mr. Kaiser would like to initiate a motion to add cooking schools to htheearlinisgt. of conditional uses under 1181 and arrange for a public
residMenr.tiaRleyazi thought it possible to add a conditional use to a district. The business would be attractive to Granville. The definition would be specific, i.e.,cooking school, and define that precisely.
Mr. Salvage thought this would be hard to write. He feels
Strongly about converting residences into business districts. We have a VBD so that we can restrict residential areas. He sees this
as a beginning of an erosion process. Mr. Myers stated such an idea should be site-specific, for it' s hard to change the overall
7
code. A specific property is precise.. different because you can be very and write .t.hat into the .text ·as .a..contract zoning to ,PUD Mr. Reyazi thought it easier to modify PUD. Mr. Myers added that if we change home occupation uses, there are other things we cannot anticipate if we make it general. Mr. Reyazi thought you could set
an initiative to change the zoning or think about it and talk about it at a later meeting.
Mr. Kaiser could come in with a cooking school definition and list the activities to be done there. Mr. Stansbury said we could limit the number of employees, etc.,but he is disinclined to change the ordinances. Mr. Wilkenfeld feels there other avenues, i. e.,SBD, where there are other lots available. Mr. Salvage would
prefer looking at such applications on a site-by-site basis. This would require BZBA approval.
Consensus was that GPC should not initiate any kind of recommendation to VC. GPC will explore this further a€* language new comes in. f
Lighting Guidelines
Mr. Reyazi included drawings of what sites would look like in residential and commercial streets. Please examine these and bring in your comments.
GPC Rules and Regulations"
Mr. Reyazi provided some language regarding ex parte contact for your review. Mr. Hurst is not entirely satisfied with Section VIIIF, so read it and bring in your suggestions.
Finding of Fact
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR BLAKE AND ITEMS B THROUGH F UNDER NEW BUSINESS AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MS. ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:
Next Meetings:
10: 55 p. m.
September 22 and October 13, a holiday.
Respe6tfully submitted,
Betty Allen
8

GPC 11/24/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING »COMMISSION ·
November 24, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Richard Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Members Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld Absent:
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Joe Hickman, Lyle King, Creston King, Gerry Martin, Mark Zarbaugh
Minutes of November 10, 1997:
Add to Minutes of October 20, Mr. Salvage acted as chair in Mr. Stansbury' s absence.
Page 1, Under Left Turn from N/G Road, Line 3, "condition, but
illage Council eliminated it because it was not within BZBA' s Jurisdiction. " Correct spelling of "provide" in first line under
Fackler' s.
the aPdadgietio2n,aul nder Line 3 in the Mr. Myers paragraphto, "g.r.a.nt ROW." Delete the 3 lines after the motion.
Page 3, halfway down, "Ownership of the alleyway is uncertain
at this point, but ownership is outside the jurisdiction of GPC." Page 34, Line 7, "first three halls." Under Greenhouse, put
quotes around architectural style.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Old Business:
Lighting Guidelines
Mr. Reyazi would like to use the Lighting Guidelines as part Of the subdivision regulations and part of the zoning ordinances. If we adopt these guidelines, they will require V.C. approval then come back to GPC as modifications to subdivision requirements. Rather than just a guide, the guidelines need to have language that says GPC can use its judgment on applications. Mr. Myers recom- mended that Mr. Reyazi upgrade the language on the guidelines to grant GPC authorization to have flexibility to change requirements. How much flexibility GPC has and what modifications are required, stated Ms. Montgomery, would depend on each situation. Mr. Stans- bvaurryianacdede.d that without flexibility, applicants would need to get a Some GPC members like shoebox fixtures, and Ms.
Robertson thought there could be a statement saying that GPC has authority to vary fixtures.
fixturMesr. Myers suggested higher lights than 12dv'.£iB. uilding-mounted are a third style. Mr. Salvage likes see*ff-lights in St
parking lots and Granville style on .pesi-:meter of parking lots, with Esplanade lights.4*4-f*reeft*;L* l«\
0-L> -DFAL14.*£37«£
V'"'«w ""'*N ®' v'"''' "'M R''I ".M 'YERSM*'O-'V' ED' , F' OR-,A „PPROVAL-O .·F* ' T·,HE«4'A+MENDED' V "·ibLAGEO'>F"":9.3.,. .:.%,
GRANVILLE EXTERIOR LIGHTING COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
REQUIREMENTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER, SEPTEMBER 5 REVISION. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Rules and Regulations
After discussion of ex parte regulations,
MR. MYERS MOVED TO AMEND THE RULES TO INCLUDE EX PARTE CONTACT
AS PARAGRAPH II OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS. MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Joe Hickman, 326 North Granger Street
Mr. Hickman stated that he wishes to modify the previously
approved application by adding a single 8' garage door of the same type adjacent to the already approved 18' wide overhead door, which would now be 16' wide. This way he can get three vehicles in the
garage. 5ALVAG- F
MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Village Brewing Company, 128 E. Broadway, Thomas Fuller
This application for an emergency exit from second floor was tabled at the last meeting, pending a change in roofing materials.
Mr. Reyazi reported the concerns expressed at the BZBA meet- ing, 1) ownership of the alley, 2) drop-down stairway, 3)
turning the stairway toward the back, (4) bridging the stairway across to Mr. Blackstone' s building, (5) directing the stairway to the back parking lot. BZBA tabled the application, pending further discussion between applicants and Blackstones and with the Building Code people.
includMer. Martin reported that they redesigned the stairway to a metal roof. He would prefer a stationary stairway to a swing-down one. Swing-down stairs are no longer in the Building Codes, but exceptions may be made if nothing else could be built. This would require a letter from the Village to the Building Code people. The stairs may not exit to the parking lot because that lot is private property. They would have difficulty directing the stairs to the north because of utilities in place there.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TAKE UP THE ISSUE PREVIOUSLY TABLED. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS MODIFIED, WITH A
METAL ROOF, COLOR TO BE STAFF-APPROVED, STAIRS PAINTED BLACK, AS PER DRAWING WHICH IS PART OF THE APPLICATION. MR. SALVAGE
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Denison' University' u Sunset ' Hill' Residence"Halls»
At the previous meeting, approval was granted, and now,
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT AS FORMAL
DECISION OF THE GPC FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HALLS. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
L.E. King &Son, Inc.,Excavating, 143 Munson St.
Creston King explained that the existing building is an old sale barn, which of similar they would like to replace with a metal building size and shape just behind the existing building. Then they would tear down the old building and build a gravel parking area.
Mr. Reyazi was concerned about storm water management and he feels the Village Engineer would not be satisfied with the plan provided. Perhaps a grading plan would be helpful. Mr. King
stated that they are at the lowest point of the community and water will run to the creek. Lyle King added that the water goes into a basin and under the old track; however, Mr. Reyazi stated that the ordinances require a storm water plan since this is a new develop- ment in the CSD and in the floodplain. Creston King stated that
Jerry Turner, engineer, had no problem with the plan. Mr. Salvage thought since they are not applying for a change in use, a development plan would not be required, but Mr. Myers referred him to Sec. 1167. 03 of the code. The King design is not a big development but must adhere to requirements.
Mr. Reyazi added that it also requires screening, and he would suggest a solid fence rather than a chainlink one. Creston King
nsoairdththey would plant pine trees, and that there is no fence on the side.
withouMtr. Reyazi told the Kings they can start on the foundation a building certificate, but he will not issue a certificate
until the Village Engineer approves the plan. Although this is a work session, it could be changed to an application with stipula- tions.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO MODIFY THE AGENDA TO INCLUDE THE
KING APPLICATION AS NEW BUSINESS. MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
SALVAGE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE KING APPLICATION SUBJECT
MR
RECEIPT OF ALL INFORMATION NECESSARY
VILLAGE ENGINEER AS REQUIRED BY THE APPROVAL BY THE VILLAGE ENGINEER. MR.
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
TO
AND APPROVAL BY THE
VILLAGE PLANNER AND
WILKENFELD SECONDED,
4tis
07
r „c«··-G-e,or·ge. Fackler,-1»960,·Newark-G- ranvil.t<e,oa*d,«'<
In the packets are various traffic reports and a memo from
Streets and Sidewalks Committee. Mr. Reyazi said that in the
spirit of giving Fackler' s more direction it' s important that GPC make decisions and provide guidelines regarding issues applicants raised last time, i. e.,parking, setbacks, access and circulation of traffic.
Setbacks. Mr. Myers stated that according to the code, GPC
may reduce setbacks, although TCOD requires 100'.Adjacent proper- ties are set back 70' and we are almost bound to 70'. Future
wsiiddee.ning of Cherry Valley Road would further reduce setback on that Mr. Wilkenfeld preferred adhering to the 100' minimum to
protect scenic vistas and maintain open space. The Cherry Valley
side should be more pedestrian oriented.
Circulation and Access. Members felt that there needs to be
more stacking availability for the bank drive-in and that curbcuts must be limited. The drive-in should not interfere with pedestrian
walkways. Joint access to adj acent properties must be considered. Maybe a right-turn-only exit should be planned at the bank. Mr.
Reyazi thought the orientation of the building could be changed for better circulation, and Ms. Robertson suggested flip-flopping the Plan, which would put the restaurant on the Cherry Valley side and put the drive-through in the back. Mr. Myers thought a service
road would be a good idea.
Parking. GPC has provided suggestions to the applicant regarding parking.
The applicant has been given a lot of suggestions and this has taken a lot of time. The applicant is not even here tonight to hear our thoughts.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR ITEMS C AND D
UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND THE KING APPLICATION AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 10: 20 p.m. Next Meetings: December 8 and 22
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 11/10/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 10, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Richard Members Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld Absent:
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),Ned Roberts, George
Fackler, Frits B. Rizor, Tim Snider, John Oney, Gerry Martin, J. Mcfarland, Joe Hickman, Chris Setzer, Art Chonko, Mike Burney, Tom Scono, Mary Jane McDonald
Minutes of October 20, 1997:
Page 2, Line 5, change "split" to acquire. Fifth line up from bottom: 1) provide written proposal of the project indicating
use of buildings."
Page 3, line 9, change "work" to submit. Under lighting,
change "incorporate" to follow.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Old Business:
Fackler' s, 1960 Newark-Granville Road
John Oney stated that he and Tim Snider are here to prdvide
answers to the questions raised at the last meeting.
Parking. Considerable discussion ensued on how much parking
was required for the Fackler complex and the delic/onvenience cen- ter in particular. Mr. Myers preferred to view the entire complex with access and circulation rather than requiring so many spaces for the deli. A convenience center, somewhere between a restaurant and a deli, is a rather arbitrary figure, and the group decided on 75-90 spaces with overflow parking for 20-30 on the grass for possible paving in the future if necessary. Storm Sewer. The applicants are talking with Mr. Murphy about running a storm sewer across the property, and Mr. Snider will con- sult further with Mr. Murphy. It will tie in with the drain on Galway. This issue needs to be pinned down before the parking lot aisppfrionvaalli.zed. Interconnecting parking lots could be a condition of also. There needs to be a connection with the Burrows property Mr. lMyers wants the applicants to think about this space as a circLue flat tiTounrnsyfstem with islands rather than Just a parking lot. rom Newark/Granville Road. Mr. Wince said the
traffic engineers said that restricting access is not a good idea gpL . bc/ eo/cnadusiteiono,f bthuet p@Proexeimlimityinatotedtheitr,9"1M@u,:h'€*&'e5h5itadwdeads nthoat twaisthian ·611*514:s'43 tjuurrnis.dicIttiomnig. h|t Ibtemwigohrtthwcahuislee more confusion to disallow a left to revisit the traffic studies.
Mr. Wilkenfeld stated that GPC is charged with making the traffic work as well as it can, so it seems that the idea of elimi- nating curbcuts and working with traffic plans throughout the en- tire area is a good idea.
el·P*».*™j· ,$·. sikiewalk'™and'w- al'kway--if·' the-s-e·tback w" ere -* re-duced-' r»·' r'·"'
Mr. Snider reminded the group that he offered to make a paved
GPC members wanted to study the traffic plans some more. Lot Coverage. The applicants show the coverage at 62%c,om- pared to the 65%allowable. They want to make the facility pedes- trian friendly.
Setbacks. The setback in the TCOD along NewarkG/ ranville Road is 100' but Erinwood and Village Green have 70' setbacks, and that is what the applicants are seeking. They want to have parking in the rear. In a previously developed area where the setback is
less,,an applicant may apply for the same. Mr. Myers asked whether the porch was in the 100' line, for it is not unusual for porches to encroach into the setback line. He would like to see where the
facade is in relation to the entire plan. Mr. Wilkenfeld cautioned
afubtouurte.setting a precedent toward variances in TCOD setbacks in the Mr. Oney will work on this issue some more. Building Height. Mr. Oney stated that the building height is 37',whereas the code specifies 30'. Rather than a bunch of small buildings, they have designed one big building and the percentage of frontage is less. If the plans considered a flat building without a roof grade, they could achieve 30'. The center portion
of the building is 37' and they could lower it, but it would not be aesthetically pleasing. The new code specifies 1%stories.
Ms. Robertson thinks it makes sense to go with the new code where height is no problem. Mr. Salvage stated that the problem with the new code is lot coverage. Mr. Snider does not want to go for variances to BZBA, but Mr. Myers would hate to see them compro- mise the architecture because of the 7, difference in height. Mr. Wince affirmed that they will go before BZBA.
r +Ue/ Ol.
1 Mr. Myers stated that there. is talk about a median strip on b tCohegrrraynVt .atll]yE*R-o€ad, in which case, would the applicants be willing all reasonable pacc.M-r. Fackler said yes. Mr. Wince said that easements would be granted. Mr. Myers stated that any ROW easements are part of preliminary plat approval, and he wants to hear from the Village Engineer whether he feels additional ROW is something to look at prior to approval of site plan. Mr. Snider thought they could cut down on the landscaping, but Mr. mMaYdeers. stated that this is to be resolved before further approval is
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION AND MATERIAL FROM APPLICANT. MR. MYERS SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
»If thsV-i,llageta/klps 15' , 1f-a} ti\s notErt-ault ando *ubl«e ne96tiate poigtf Pa®kin w ' ill ne o a «*he«applicant of laa*ping. - s Udscreen New Business:
Bill and Louise Wernet, 213 North Granger Street
Ned Roberts explained that the Wernets wish to replace jalou- Sie porch windows with double-hung windows and the existing storm door with full-view exterior door. Materials will match the house.
2
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. MR. WILKENFELD
-' -'-' '--" S>E"C O N'-D"ED;A -ND 'IT'W:'AS' UNANIMOUSISYA"PPROVED'- -"»'' "'"'" ''-» ' »'8'r"·-s-: s ·r* ..e,.e n.™..·-
Joseph Hickman, 326 North Granger Street
Because they can only get one car in the garage, the Hickmans
would like to change from a 3-piece slide to an 18' overhead door.
They also wish to put a full view storm door at the front door.
MR SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mary Jane McDonald, 325 West Broadway
Ms. McDonald wishes to add a wooden screen porch on the southeast corner, 15' from east property line and close to the neighboring house which is on the property line. The materials and colors will match the house.
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Village Brewing Company, 128 East Broadway
Tom Fuller is applying for approval of an emergency egress 4' wide stairway on the west wall of the building into the 10' alley- way. For Brew' s expansion into the second floor, they are required by the building code to have two exits to ensure health A and safety of patrons in case of fire. It will be a steel stairway5_/
cover5d with an asphalt shingle roof. ill.24«< Uts43- 03 Ownership of the alleyway is uncertain at this point, a.nd A. Biaekstorrert-eedst-ep«r5vtdee-videree-theah- eo-wns _thea·-ltey. Mr. 6.u'<* Fuller feels it is for common use of both parties. In any case applicant will need a side yard setback variance from BZBA. U G7QG
Gerry Martin said they need to keep the emergency stairway in the front, away from the kitchen. The alarm door on stairway opens only from the inside and is not to be used for ingress.
External stairways must be covered, according to code. Mr. Reyazi does not think asphalt shingles will look very good; canvas eawxpneinngsivweo.uld look better. Metal would look good but would be Mr. Martin wants to match the color of the building bricks. This stairway would narrow the alley, but GPC is only concerned with architecture. Mr. Myers suggested the applicant look into commercial roofing materials.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PENDING RECEIPT OF
MORE MATERIAL; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Denison University, Sunset Hill
The applicants wish to build three four-story residence halls, housing 52 students each, although this application is for only one hall. Mr. Chonko and Mr. Scono explained the plans for the halls.
3
Parking. GPC may set requirements for uses not specifically stated int-he-·ccidetT- h-e'n-'earesct-ategoryw- oul·dr-equire· ·12 -parkingr. , , . .4..,.«...'.. .... -
space per room, in which case they would be 48 spaces short.
However, the remoteness of the location would pose little burden to public areas. After much discussion, consensus agreed to require
Parking spaces for 70 per cent of the proposed residents in the firsthall-5, This is not to be construed as blanket approval for any daher application.
Lighting. They will use Granville lighting fixtures but in
the parking lot use shoebox fixtures.
Storm Water issues will be worked out. Jerry Turner will need
to approve plans.
plans.
Landscaping. The Tree and Landscape Committee will review the
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITIONS
THAT: (1) THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN MEET CRITERIA OF THE
VILLAGE ENGINEER; 2( ) LANDSCAPING BE APPROVED BY TREE AND LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE; (3) AND THAT PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED
FOR 70 PER CENT OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE HALL. MR. SALVAGE
SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE ABSTENTION
MS. ROBERTSON).
Work Sessions
George Fackler, 2326 Newark-Granville Road
Mr. Fackler provided a memo with some of the items requested
at the last meeting.
Fence. The new fence to replace the chainlink will be a 54" four-rail New Albany type, which will need BZBA approval. Greenhouse. The lath shade house will be replaced with an architectural styleg"reenhouse with rigid panels rather than plastic.
The house on the east will be replaced with a garden center and specialty shop for gifts and woodstoves. Barn will have a rustic hometown feel.
Mr. Reyazi asked for more information for the development,
which is in the new SBD district. This is a nonconforming
uresqe,uiarinndgthe purpose is to bring uses into conformity. Items further study:
1) ingress/ egress, parking, access points
2) distance to the ROW lines; TCOD requires 100' setback. The fact that the facility already exists and will use the same footprint may gain some consideration, i.e.,setbacks 3) check on height of buildings; siting plan, showing all existing structures there now; 4) site plan showing planned structures and their appearance. It' s impossible to evaluate buildings in isolation; they have an impact on each other.
5) Square footage of all buildings
4
6) Off-street loading locations
7) Landscaping plan ' -
8) Schedule a public to decide hearing with Village Council. They need whether this a modification or new construction.
Lighting Guidelines and "GPCR- ules and Regulations" These will be first on the agenda next time.
Finding of Fact
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR ITEMS A,B, C
AND E UNDER NEW BUSINESS AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 10: 20 p. m.
Next Meetings: November 24 and December 8
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
t,
5

GPC 05/19/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 19, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson,
Richard Salvage, Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Gary Stansbury
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),Joe Hickman, Gerry
Martin, Joan Anderson, Mike Willis, Morris Duncan, Matt McGowan,
Gene Agan, Steve Smith, Tod Darfus, Margery Mitchell, Carlos
Brezina
Minutes of May 5, 1997: MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES
AS PRESENTED AND MR. SALVAGE SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: none
New Business:
Steven A. Smith, 331 Spellman Street
Mr. Smith wishes to add to an existing side-yard deck,
connecting this deck with front porch and overlaying old concrete
steps. Height will be slightly lower for tiered appearance, and a lattice will match existing deck.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. SALVAGE
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Willis Machine Works, 1965 Westgate Drive
The applicant wishes to add to his existing building, doubling the floor area to 3500 sq. ft. A letter from the Tree
and Landscape Comm. recommends (1) screening for dumpster taller than container; ( 1' 2) plant two trees, minimum caliper 1 3/4";3 )(trees should be planted in the lawn areas next to existing trees. Parking area will be gravelled. Mr. Willis is
moving the dumpster so as not to cut down trees in the back of building, and dumpster will be fenced in. There is also a retention pond there and screening will be provided. Applicant
said the buidlings will be connected but they are engineered to stand alone, and metal siding will be overlapped. Mr. Willis
pislanasvatoilabcolen.nect existing storm drain to storm sewer line when it Contrary to what is indicated in the plans, appli- cant will put the service area in the vehicle use area. MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: MOVE DUMPSTER TO VEHICLE AREA EAST OF NEW BUILDING AND (2) FOLLOW RECOMMENDATIONS OF TREE AND ULANNADNSIMCOAPUESLYCOMMISSION.M' R. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED.
2
Fred Palmer, 231 West Maple Street
Mr. Palmer wishes to construct an addition to his house
where his rear porch currently exists. Mr. Palmer was not
present at the meeting and it is not known what the materials
will be.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO
VILLAGE PLANNER' S APPROVAL OF MATERIALS WITH A VIEW OF
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING STRUCTURE. MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
Village Brewing Company, 128 East Broadway
Mr. Reyazi stated that the applicant wishes to expand Brews
to include an upstairs retail establishment. barl/ounge space, previously used as a It meets all standards but will require
variance from BZBA for parking requirements. Mr. Martin said
that a lot of people are waiting for tables in the restaurant and they want to use the upstairs space as a waiting area, ca. 900
sq. ft. Pool tables will use about one-third of the space. Pool
tables are permitted depending on magnitude of game area, and Mr. Reyazi thinks one-third should be maximum area.
Members discussed parking, and most parking will be in the evening, when more space is available. The ordinance requires
less parking space for restaurants than for retail space, and the judgment rests with the Village Planner, who prefers the situa- tion go through BZBA. Regarding safety, Mr. Martin has checked with the fire marshal and he gives his approval as long as there are two entrances.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE STIPU- LATION THAT THE GAME AREA NOT EXCEED 40 PER CENT OF THE 900 SQ. FT AREA AND PENDING APPROVAL OF PARKING VARIANCE BY BZBA. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY
SALVAGE VOTING NO BECAUSE OF THE
MAJORITY VOTE WITH MR.
CONDITIONS PUT UPON MOTION.
Richard and Joan Anderson, 2665 Newark-Granville Road
withinThe Andersons wish to build a deck on the rear of the house, the TCOD and visible from the road. There already is a wdeitchk iint. front of the doors, and the proposed deck will connect
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Joseph Hickman, 326 North Granger Street
Mr. Hickman wishes to rplace existing wire mesh fence with a cedar privacy fence, idstall an above-ground swimming pool add
3
new storm door, and replace two windows. Mr. Hickman stated that the existing door fence is deteriorating, and the school next wants to replace it with chainlink. The fence he proposed is cedar similar to the one at the Lutheran Church. It starts in the back and from southeast part of lot, close to walkway. There
will be fencing from shed to property line. The swimming pool will be enclosed. The 72" fence will adjoin an existing 42" fence, and the end result will completely enclose back yard.
He wishes to remove the storm door and replacement windows from application because he is not ready with the plans.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH DELETION OF DOORS AND WINDOWS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Brezina Construction Services
Mr. Reyazi stated that Brezina Construction wishes to discuss a site development in the Parnassus Village Condominiums. Mr. Brezina stated that the original site plan (ca. 1984) included a structure that was never built, and he is seeking permission to build it. Mr. Reyazi is not clear about all the
legal issues, but approval is required by GPC because it is in the PUD. Mr. Reyazi has been looking for the original plan and
appears to have found it, but is not sure. Mr. Brezina stated that it will be compatible with other units in the Parnassus Village. Legal questions, such as frontage and whether this is in the TCOD and whether the plan is the approved plan, will be discussed with Mr. Hurst, Law Director. Mr. Myers wondered
whether the original plan can be modified or is a new plan required. It is not certain how much the design will change.
Consensus said it will be OK to build the unit but more information is needed. There have been no negative written
comments from neighbors. Mr. Brezina needs to work out any
restrictions with the condominium association. Mr. Reyazi added
that the closer the Brezina plan is to the original plan, the sounder legal grouds he will rest on. Compatibility is
important.
Announcements:
1. Jim Sweeney was introduced as new part-time Village
Planner.
2. Mr. Reyazi asked whether anyone had comments about the
new Rules, and heard none.
3. Design Standards from Frank Elmer have been received.
4. Mr. Reyaszi will meet with the village engineer soon to
discuss revised non-residential lighting guidelines.
5. Traffic Studies from Ohio Department of Transportation
have been distributed for members to study.
6. GranVilla wants to change color of its awning sans
words, and GPC members thought they should submit an application.
It must have "subdued" colors.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT UNDER NEW THE SIX APPLICATIONS, A THROUGH F BUSINESS, APPROVED TONIGHT; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED AND FINDINGS OF FACT WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8: 50 p. m.
Next Meeting: June 9 and 23.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
2
4

GPC 05/05/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 5, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Richard Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Members ASbaslveangte: , Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel)M, r. and Mrs. Steven Blake, Tim Klinger, Scott Hickey
Minutes of April 21, 1997: Page 3, line before "Denison University" paragraph, add after "Sandy Yorka, "Professor of Astronomy at Denison University. Page 4, Line 13, add from College Street to Burton Hall after "to the lot." MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: none
New Business:
Stephen H. Blake, 212 East Elm
The Blakes wish to restore the Bancroft House in two phases because while the roof must be replaced now, other aspects are not clear as yet. Tonight they are seeking approval for repair
or replacement of front door, house trim, side and storm doors, windows and storm windows, roof, and exterior lighting.
Mr. Blake would like to get the roof and painting done within two months and is adhering to historical period and using quality workmanship. Interior will be gutted and floors will be removed, repaired and replaced. They will salvage what they can of the old house. The driveway project will be postponed. They
will remove the little addition on the east side and add a screen porch.
Mr. Reyazi said that Items 1-8 on Mr. Blake' s list can be
considered tonight since they are repairs, but an schematic
drawing of elevation of the screen porch is needed. Mr. Salvage
thought we could approve No. 9 subject to BZBA approval of variance
for air conditioner location.
One issue of concern is a proposed two-lane brick driveway
curved to the alley. Since cars parked in this driveway will be
very close to side view of eastern neighbor, and because most
houses in the immediate area do not have parking visible from the
street, back-yard parking would be encouraged instead. - Members
wanted to see a drawing and were concerned about lights shining
in neighbors' windows. Mr. Myers wanted to be sure cars .would
stay on the two brick lanes when turning, and Mr. Wilkenfdld
wondered whether turning cars would hit the existing fence.
Mrs. Blake said they want to remove the porch while the
roofer is there, but GPC does not know what will replace it, so applicant is_ taking _a risk. ____.__
MS.ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE SENTENCE NOS. 1-8 AND THROUGH FIRST OF NO. 10, PLAN I, ON THE LIST, PENDING RECEIPT BY VILLAGE PLANNER OF PICTURES FOR ITEMS 4, 5, AND 8 AND PENDING BZBA APPROVAL OF VARIANCE FOR AIR CONDITIONER USNEATNBIMAOCUKS NL{YO.AP9PR}O.VMEDR.. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS
Scott Hickey, 211 East Elm Street
The applicant wishes to construct a white gothic style picket fence around the rear yard of his house for the dog. The neighbor' s stockade fence will be next to this picket fence. Mr. Hickey would plant flowers or mulch the area between fences. Mr. Myers thought the fence would look better a couple of feet inside to gain a nice planting strip, and Mr. Hickey thought this could be done.
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mary Kay Roberts, 745 Cherry Valley Road -Sign
Ms. Roberts was not present to describe the V-shaped over- sized real estate sign she wishes to erect at her home. Mr.
Stansbury suggested limiting it to one side and placing it parallel to the road and further back. Mr. Reyazi wanted a time
limitation because it' s so big. Erinwood signs are up for one year. Members discussed the 10. 667 sq. ft. size compared to the 6 sq. ft maximum and determined it would be acceptable because of other signs in the area, the size of the lot, and the open area. Mr. Wilkenfeld prefers sticking to the code.
MR. MYERS MOVED THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) SIGN BE LIMITED TO A SINGLE SIDE,
32" X 48" NO HIGHER THAN 6' ABOVE GRADE, PARALLEL TO ROAD- WAY. 2) THIS TEMPORARY SIGN IS SUBJECT TO STAFF REVIEW
WITHIN 6 MONTHS. A REVIEW WILL BE MADE BY GPC AT THE END OF
6 MONTHS UPON RECEIPT OF APPLICATION. MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE THREE APPLICATIONS APPROVED
TONIGHT; MR. MYERS SECONDED AND FINDINGS OF FACT WERE
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:
Next Meeting:
8: 45 p.m.
May 19 (Mr. Stansbury will be absent)
Regular meetings are changed to second and fourth Mondays from
now on. June meetings are June 9 and 23.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
2

GPC 04/17/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 17, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Salvage, Gary Lyn Robertson, Richard Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: Keith Myers
Also Present:
VAdiasmitsors Present: Scott Rawden (Sentinel)J,erry Martin, Russ
Minutes of March 3, 1997: Page 1, line 3 under Lighting
Guidelines, change to "They normally recommend. . ."Page 2,
line 6, change "light" to light around the edges. Delete 'but these guidelines would prevent that."Delete "not" in same line. Page 3, line 11, change to "bare bulbs on kindergarden building aFnradnpk.lay area, and Mr. . . ."Under Malarky, change H" erb" to Beginning of last paragraph, change to "Ms. Robertson
would like to know that a landscaping plan was in place."Mr. Salvage moved to approve minutes as corrected and Mr. Wilkenfeld seconded. Motion was unanimously approved.
Citizens Comments: None
New Business:
Russ Adams, 111 North Prospect
Mr. Asdams wishes to install vinyl siding from sidewalk to top of the third floor on the front facade. He stated that he
has chosen a light gray color with 4" dutch lap to replace the
existing siding.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH LIGHT GRAY
AS FINAL COLOR. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple
Mr. Rogers would like to raise existing walls of rear room
to match the height and style of existing roof lines on the
house. He wants to add an 8' porch on the north side second floor
to match the front porch. There will be double doors on second
floor above those on first floor, replacing windows.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Village Brewing Co. (Brews' s),128 East Broadway
Mr. Fuller wishes to locate a 6 sq. ft. sandblasted sign in
the front door window. Jerry Martin stated that the sign will
have logo and hours of operation. The sign on the window at
present will be removed.
MR WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE THREE TONIGHT APPLICATIONS APPROVED SINCE THEY WERE APPROVED WITHOUT MODIFICATION. MR.
STANSBURY, IN MR. REYAZI' S ABSENCE, WILL TAKE CARE OF WHATEVER PAPERWORK IS NEEDED SO APPLICANTS CAN START CONSTRUCTION. MR. WILKENFIELD SECONDED, AND FINDINGS OF FACT WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8: 00 p. m.
Next Meeting: April 7 (Mr. Salvage will be absent, and Mr. Wilkenfeld may be absent) and April 21
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
2

GPC 06/09/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 9, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Richard Salvage, Gary
Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson °
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner < Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),Bob Seith, Steve Miller,
Bill Acklin, Bruce Henderson, Greg Nutter, Noni Nutter, Betty
Morrison, Mr. and Mrs. Darfus, Mr. and Mrs. Struthers, Tom Fuller,
Ron VanAtta
Minutes of May 5, 1997: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES
AS PRESENTED AND MR. SALVAGE SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: none
Old Business:
Brew' s, 128 East Broadway
Mr. Reyazi reported that at the last GPC meeting the change of
use was approved, conditional upon approval of a parking variance by BZBA. Upon further discussion with Rufus Hurst, a variance is
not necessarily required since less the parking requirements will be than previously. Tonight' s application is for removal of this condition if GPC members concur. Mr. Salvage noted that he had
voted against approval because of the parking-variance condition. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO REMOVE THE CONDITION THAT THE VILLAGE
BREWING COMPANY MUST RECEIVE PERMISSION FROM BZBA REGARDING
PARKING. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
Kristin Darfus, 132-142 North Prospect Street
coloreTdhe applicant wishes to replace existing awning with a multi- one. The sample provided is similar to the awning at James Store. Mr. Darfus stated the old burgundy awning has rotted, and he wanted something that goes with the theme of the colors within the building. There will be nine awnings on the building, including the other shops, and the awnings are rounded and tuck up under- neath. No lettering will be on the awning, so it is not a sign. The question of compatibility remains, and since there are other striped awnings in the village, this one presents no problem. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Clarke Wilhelm, 130 North Prospect Street
paperMr. Wilhelm wishes to place an 11"x17" double-sided temporary a salesJigunnea1t 0th-e corner of Prospect and East Broadway, announcing 13 and June 27 and 28.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE ALLOW APPLICANT TO HAVE
THE SIGN ON SPECIFIC DATES -SPECIFIED PENDING-COMPLETION OFAPPLICATION.
MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Tom Fuller stated that the businesses along North Prospect are
sort of left out and he thinks the sign should be larger because a
small sign will not draw attention to the shop. Members agreed and
would not mind the sign being larger. The motion was thereby
amended to read : 4 /O 4
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE trHE AL,heW APPLICANT TO HAVE
THE SIGN UP TO MAXIMUM SIZE ALLOWED IN THE CODE ON SPECIFIC
DATES SPECIFIED PENDING COMPLETION OF APPLICATION. MR.
SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
IGA, South Main Street
The applicant wishes to hang a temporary vinyl and rope sign
at the shopping center entrance as part of a Fourth of July holiday
promotion, June 30-July 5. The banner will be 27 sq. ft. and does
not meet sign standards. It is all ready {sic} made.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED; MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Gregory R. Nutter, Gregory' s of Granville, 120 Linden Place
The applicant wishes to change the use from office to retail
use. They will have 200 sq. ft. for gallery retail 200 sq. ft for framing samples, and shop will space and about operation. The have limited hours of rest of the space is for office/workroom. The
question for GPC is how many parking spaces will be needed. There
is one exclusive parking space for Mr. Nutter and 7 shared spaces with other tenants. If requirements are going to be less than for the previous tenant, BZBA approval is not needed. If more, then a variance is required.
Mr. Nutter sees no difference between his shop and the Legend Magazine office there previously. Mr. Nutter is usually the only
one there, and most of his business is by appointment. Mr. Salvage stated that this business is already in the neighborhood and should not require change in parking spaces since it only moves from one spot to another and would seem, therefore, to have no impact. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED·, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Gregory. R. Nutter, Gregory' s of Granville, 120 Linden Place
Mr. Nutter wishes to place a 5 sq. ft. sign on the drop of the bawlancikng at the entrance of his new shop, with white lettering on canvas.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2
S
3
Robert and Brook Struthers, 214 Cherry Street
The applicants wish to build a 720 sq. ft.
the back yard where they park cars now.
two-car garage in
It would meet setbacks and
lot coverage restrictions and garage would not be visible from
Cherry Street. The siding would be painted to match the house, and
shingles on the 5" {sic} pitch roof will match house shingles.
Work Session:S43 6-0/4/ *24- b/ or,2 e-/- s5,1-%
First Presbyterian Church, 110 West Broadway
Mr. Reyazi stated additional information has been received
regarding their proposed addition. Mr. Acklin handed out drawings
and and referred to the letter from Miller Group Architects of June
3 and asked what else needs to be provided. Mr. Reyazi said there
needs to be as much of the final application as possible, including
elevations, civil package, storm water, landscaping, etc. Sharing
of utility costs has yet to be determined by the Village Manager
and Engineer. Mr. Axcklin would find providing full civil drawings
very expensive just to get approval [particularly if application is not approved].The architect has provided west elevation, as requested, and lowered the roofline. There will be trellis and
garden areas.
Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted to assure that the neighbor, Bob Seith, is satisfied, but despite some progress being made, Mr. Seith sreupnelaigtehdt that is still confronting him and he must forfeit and openness. Mr. Reyazi' s concern is relative size of the building in relation to other buildings there; it will look like one building. He wondered whether a different architecture
might break up the massing. The architect, Mr. Miller, felt he has done all he can. He said the square footage of footprint is 5, 900. cTohueldre will be no basement, and Mr. Wilkenfeld thought that space be better utilized. Mr. SadS.e#e#stimated the church' s size wtheillablleeyiwncarye,asbeudt Mbyr. oAncek-tlhinirdre,peadtedaskthedatatbhoeuyt nbereiddging it over the space.
lot oTfheitparking situation was discussed,Aand Mr. Acklin thought a could be handled by two Sunday0' ervices. Mr. Reyazi said 4 pthroavtidleodt coverage exceeds maximum, and landscaping will need to be as compensation. Something will be needed to alleviate the massiveness of the facility.
Ms. Montgomery referred to the Ordinance (1159. 04. c) which allows plans to be approved in two phases, but Mr. Reyazi said this wtwaos pfoharseosn.goinCgonpseronsjeuscts and doubted a concept could be approved in liked the two-phase idea. Phase I would include scope, site plan, footprint showing adjacent structures and distances, elevations, parking plan, lot coverage. Mr. Reyazi will check with Mr. Hurst on parking decisions. Phase II would include atchitectural design, materials, and other items in the checklist.
Mr. Stansbury would prefer the church and Mr. Seith to reach agreement rather than GPC doing it for them.
il
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATION FOR BREWS' S, AND A
THROUGH F UNDER NEW BUSINESS, WHICH WERE APPROVED TONIGHT; MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED AND FINDINGS OF FACT WERE UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Adjournment: 9: 20 p. m.
Next Meetings: June 23 and July 14.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
11_
4

GPC 06/23/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 23, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Lyn Robertson, Richard
Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Keith Myers
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),Bob Nutter, Betty
Morrison, Jack Fletchner (Granville Square Apartments),James Tipp
Minutes of June 9, 1997: Page 2, change motions at top section:
APPROVE APPLICATION TO HAVE . . .P"age 3, add under Struthers,
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Page 3, center paragraph, line
3, change "it" to the building. Same paragraph, third line from
end, change "Mr. Salvage" to Mr. Stansbury. Next paragraph, add
The parking situation was discussed. The potential loss of 6 or 7
parking spaces was a concern to GPC members, and the applicant was asked to find replacement space. Mr. Acklin thought a lot of the
problem could be handled 1,
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: Mr. Flechner of Granville Square Apartments
asked why his application was not on the agenda, and upon checking, Momr. ittReedyazi said he distributed an earlier copy of the agenda, which this item. Revised agendas were provided.
New Business:
Douglas and Connie Kramer, 120 S. Mulberry Street
Mr. Reyazi reported that the Kramers wish to paint the house a yellowa/vocado color, replace the front door, replace front window with French doors, and remove fence from front yard.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street
The applicant wishes to build a 25' x22' x20' high garage, 1' from north property line and 1' from east property line. It will
have wood siding which will match the house. He plans to move existing shed to northwest corner of lot, although this is not part qouf etsotnioingsht' s application. Mr. Rogers was not present, and several arose: 1) How can the three trees remain at the loca- tion of the proposed garage; (2) what will Mr. Rogers do with the vat behind the shed; (3) will he need an application to tear down or move the shed; (4) will a 20' high garage be compatible with the saaretisaf;y (5t)hewinlel igthheboarpplicant clean Up the clutter there now and to the west. After discussion, GPC members felt the plan was compatible and would be an improvement. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE BUILDING THE GARAGE SUBJECT TO BZBA APPROVAL OF VARIANCE FROM REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS. IF APPLICANT WISHES TO MOVE THE SHED, HE MUST BRING IT TO THE
2
ATTENTION OF THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,
AND IT WAS. UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVED.
Noni Nutter, Willowood Gifts, 129 Westgate Drive
Ms. Nutter wishes to place a 27"x32" sign similar to the
existing "Westgate Antiques" sign but a little smaller. These two
signs will flank the existing "R. E. Morrison" sign. The total sign
area is about 2%' over maximum allowable size, and Ms. Morrison
thought she would probably remove the "R. E."lettering, which would
bring total area within code. Mr. Wilkenfeld thought that making
the new sign exactly the same dimensions as the antiques sign would
bring it into better balance.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR THE SIGN; MS.
ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
James R. Kent, 215 South Prospect Street
The applicant wishes to add a 16' x20' deck on the back of the house.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED; MS
ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Roger Coombs, 218 East Maple Street
Mr. Coombs wishes to build a white wooden fence with lattice in the rear yard, running along a paved parking area on the north lot line. Garage and parking area are accessed from the rear alley. Another section of fence will run from the other side of
the garage along the remaining short section of north lot line to west lot line. These sections will be 4' high, and another section will be 6' high, completely enclosing the parking area and connect- ing the new fence to a neighboring old barn that sits on that line. MS ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION PENDING AGREEMENT OF NEIGHBOR FOR THE FENCE TO BE ATTACHED TO HIS BARN. IF IT DOES
NOT CONNECT TO THE BARN, IT NEEDS TO HAVE A SPACE WIDE ENOUGH FOR AN ADULT TO BE ABLE TO WALK THROUGH IT. MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
GStraannfovrildle Square Apartments, 671-675 West Broadway (Thomas Tripp, Ackley)
Mr. Tripp wishes to replace the 6. 25 sq. ft. identification sign with a white one with black letters. It will be the same size and in the same location, and it meets code for multi-family signs. MS ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.
SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Review of Proposed Planning Commission Rules and Regulations
thereMr. Reyazi presented a draft of rules and regulations, stating is a lot here that is inconsistent with village ordinances
and he will update the draft with GPC comments. The major bone of
conterition dealt with IV.B, "No..new agenda items shall be. taken up after 9: 30 p.m.a,n"d members felt that agenda items should be
addressed if on the agerfda but that work sessions could be
postponed if the hour grew late.
Other items were discussed and language clarified. Mr. Reyazi
will bring in another draft at a later date.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT UNDER NEW
BUSINESS, A THROUGH F, WHICH WERE APPROVED TONIGHT; MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED AND FINDINGS OF FACT WERE UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Adjournment:
Next Meetings:
9: 00 P. m.
July 14 and July 28 (Betty will be absent).
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
3
8
Policy for Drop-off Boxes,Vending Machines
and other Outdoor Product Structures
Granville Planning Commission
May 1996
This Policy is to effectively regulate signage that is located upon Outdoor Product
Structures such as: Federal Express and UPS drop-off boxes, vending machines and any other product structures.
1)
2)
Outdoor Product Structures shall be located to the interior of the property.
In cases where the Outdoor Product Structure can be easily seen from the
right-of-way, the structure shall be located to minimize from the view of the structure the right-of-way.
3) Product identification on vending machines and lighting of product structures shall require the submittal of a sign permit application to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
4) The Village Planner shall recommend and approve the locations of all Outdoor Product Structures. The propertyb/usiness owner shall have the right to appeal to the Planning Commission if he ando/r she does not agree with the Village PlanneZr/oning Inspector's decision.
UGc-a„fs-r-
Ly( gj}Robertson -Chair
FKeith Myers " 5:'
Richard Salvage -School Board Rep,
r./\
L.; # 1 f 1
Gary St nsbury -Vice-Chair Z
71[3/>1/u[) 1«1- i¢larc Shhlman'
12f ' «1 , ..
Maxitj6 Montgomery -CpAcil Rep

GPC 07/28/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 28, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Peter Marshall (for Maxine Montgomery), Keith
WMyilekres,nfLeyldn Robertson, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Carl
Members Absent:
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),Brian and Stephanie Parsley
Minutes of July 14, 1997:
Page 1: Third paragraph f rom bottom, change to: "Mr. S tansbury thought not all businesses there want signs. He is concerned about
precedent-setting and_g_rantingm_ore-S_ZAare footage than allowed by code. . ."Under first Morrison paragraph, last sentence, "The
sandwich board is not counted as maximum signage." Page 2: The first motion, " . . a .nd motion was unanimously
approved with some members' reluctance."
Page 3: line 1, "Mr. Stansbury stated that since Ms. Shurtz is not present to explain her signs and the signs violate the zoning tcohdeeamnd ,th. e. fa."ct that she never received permission to erect Next to last paragraph, " Ms. Robertson asked Mr.
Miller to explain the application in architectural terms and about the columns on the east side,. . ."
Page 4: third paragraph, "In answer to further cruestioning. "
End of Sth paragraph, 3"0 per cent, the total lot coverage allowed by code." Last paragraph: "Mr. Reyazi stated that the application
was received before_ the_Moratorium and was scheduled to be heard durinELth- e_Moratoriubmut--Mr.W_oodswanted_to- _makesome changes . " Page 5, paragraph 4, "lights hang down 8"."
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. MYERS SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None.
New Business:
Gloria Hoover, 213 East College Street
Ms. Hoover wishes to replace the slate roof with shingles and has been granted emergency permission by the Village Manager to begin repairs since the roof was leaking. Replacement of slate is beyond affordability, and Ms. Hoover will match the slate with material and color as similar as possible to existing material. Mclra. rSiftyantshbiusrywaisthked about the four roof vents, and Mr. Reyazi will Ms. Hoover. Most of the repairs are to the back of the house and not visible.to the street.
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE STIPULATION
THAT THE REPAIRS NOT BE VISIBLE TO THE STREET. MS.
ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Jonathan Bridge, 516 West Broadway
1 t.
2
Mr. Bridge steps wishes to replace the concrete steps-w· i·th wood" of the. same size and in the same location. The lattice will extend along the side to look like the rest of the house. Although this would be in the TCOD, lesser setbacks have reduced setbacks in similar built-up areas.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MS. ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Brian and Stephanie Parsley, 316 West Maple Street
The Parsleys wish to carry out extensive repairs and renova- tions to the house and property and summarized their plans as Part of the application with photos and drawings. Following Mr. Par- sley' s explanation, GPC members discussed the 17 items one by one and had a few questions:
No. 5. Mr. Wilkenfeld wondered what the enclosed carport would look like with knee walls and trellis panels. Mr. Parsley said that they would be 2"x3" strips about 2' in from each post suspended by eyehooks and held in place at bottom. look No. 9. The shingle style is 3-tab style shaded and colored. to like slate.
No. 13. Mr. Parsley thinks vertical siding, rather than horizoNon.tal, would add character to the look of the garage. 15. The pickets of the fence are to be on the outside facing neighbors.
No. 16. Applicant will replace the three trees to be removed. No. 17. There are now shrubs at the location where the air uconnitdiftrioomnetrhewill be placed, and Mr. parsley plans to screen the street.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED; MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Greg and Ginny Sharkey, 117 South Plum Street
of theThheouSshea.rkeys wish to build a 64-sq. ft. wooden deck on the back for They have received BZBA approval for the variance insufficient setbacks, as the back of the house is 6' from the rear lot line and 12' from north lot line. The nearest trails on Sugarloaf Park, the neighbor, are about 25-30' from the deck. The deck will not be visible from the street. This plan is consistent with other decks in the district.
MS ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Old Business:
Douglas and Connie Kramer, 120 South Mulberry Street
Although GPC approved the Akistie door on their plans recently, the applicants now wish to. substitute a single door in order to get
more light into the house. The question was whether this consti- tuted a substantial members agreed change over the original application-, and that it was not substantial.
MR. MYERS MOVED TO AMEND THE FINDING OF FACT TO CHANGE THE
N19MH DOUBLE DOOR TO A NEWPORT II SINGLE DOOR; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
First Presbyterian Church, 110 West Broadway
Mr. Reyazi stated that John Reagan, architect, will be present caht utrhceh.August 11 GPC meeting to talk about the design of the He will consult with Mr. Miller beforehand and provide a written report in advance.
Work Sessions:
Kathy Shurtz, Shepardson Condominiums
Ms. Shurtz had planned to be present to discuss alternatives to her "No Trespassing" signs in a residential district, which was denied at the last meeting, but she was absent. Mr. Reyazi said the signs are still up and she must take them down.
Vending Machines.
Having received some complaints about the vending machines at Bennett' s and IGA, Mr. Reyazi wanted to discuss the policy adopted in 1996. Being considered as signs, any change must be in compli- ance with sign ordinances. These machines have been there for a long time, and Ms. Robertson reminded the group that any change in any sign means it must be in compliance with regulations. Mr. Marshall stated that the signs are owned by the vending machine company and the property owner pays a certain percentage of income to him. Mr. Salvage thought this policy would not include other signs at a business.
Mr. Reyazi wants to photograph vending machines and tell the Poeple involved that this is the policy and if they change any- thing, consider themselves notified in advande. Any new machines require approval.
Rules and Regulations for GPC."
into Changes discussed at the last meeting have been incorporated the new draft. Other changes discussed tonight were:
I. C. 1. Mr. Marshall said that a person should be removed from GPC for a certain number of unexcused absences, but Mr. Reyazi said Mr. Hurst did not want that stated because the charter would have to be changed. Mr. Salvage wanted Mr. Reyazi to check with Mr. Hurst about the language in this section.
II. C. Change 24 hours to 48 hours.
3
VIII. B. occurs. Change the word 'case' to 'application' wherever it
VIII. C and E. Reverse these two.
VIII. F. Mr. Reyazi will check with Mr. Hurst about swearing in a person who wants to give evidence and about the difference between a Public Hearing and a Hearing. In a Hearing for a zoning Certificate, neighbors do not need to be notified. Mr. Marshall added that appeal hearings are held in public but are not public hearings; people have to speak during Citizens' Comments. Ms. Robertson stated that a PUD application changes the zoning code so it is necessary to have a public hearing.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE· APPLICATIONS FOR HOOVER,
BRIDGE, PARSLEY, SHARKEY, AND REVISION FOR KRAMER AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED AND FINDINGS OF FACT WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:
Next Meetings:
9: 10 P. m.
August 11 and August 25
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4

GPC 07/14/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 14, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: James Harf (for Richard Salvage),Maxine
Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Gary Stansbury, Carl
Wilkenfeld
Members Absent:
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),Bob Seith, Steve Miller,
Bill Acklin, Betty Morrison, Thomas Miller, Betty and Jim Prentice,
Flo and William Hottman, John Woods, Leta Ross, Greg Ross, Gary
Haga, Carl Frazier
Minutes of June 23, 1997: Ms. Montgomery asked whether corrected
I minutes were aistributed to members, and was told that corrected
minutes are on file. MS ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS
PRESENTED AND MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: Mr. Stansbury noted that comments may be made
now regarding anything on the agenda from citizens not directly
affected by an application. Ms. Robertson hoped that we can be
sensitive to those who think of questions during the meeting and let them speak.
New Business:
Betty Morrison, 129 Westgate Drive
Ms. Morrison wishes high to erect a 9. 63 sq. ft. ground sign 12' at the southwest corner of the property in order that it can be seen from Cherry Valley Road. Currently the business has 3
signsf-o-r the antique shop, the R.E. Morrison lettering, and the sandwich board. With the Willowood sign and the new sign, that
would make 5 signs. Considering the existing name "R. E. Morrison"
which members agreed was a sign) presently in place, the site is 14 sq. ft. oversize. The sandwich board is not counted as sionage. MA. Mr. sign Wilkenfeld thought people would not be able to see the new from the road. All businesses there should be listed on a shnrrlo r'nmhtnarl cirrn
Mr. Clt-milch,irri thought not
is concerned about precedent-sett R. E. Morrison let tering to make t
Morrison is willing to remove the
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED T
STIPULATION THAT THE
MYRR2 .<ArrnMn=n! AND I
NALAO-W&# Cf)f/
all t,usine's ses there want signs. UO
ing and would prefer removing the
he application within code. Ms.
lettering.
0 APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE
R. E. MORRISON LETTERS BE REMOVED. MR.
T WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
TGA, ARZL r€,iit-h Mn:I--in-=CtI.ra .n.=.t- .---
Greg Ross vv- 1-0.LiCID to J.C L/l /v C
which savs Ross Food Market wit a portion of the sign at the street h the new Granville IGA loao. The
t-/
2
rest of the sign would remain as is. He would also like GPC to
advise how to best identify the store at the site. The sign·is- -a
nonconforming use, and the business has 113 sq. ft. total signage.
Any change to a nonconforming use must comply with current requirements.
Mr. Stansbury suggested that with Certified erecting a monument
sign, this might be the time for IGA to do the same, but Mr.
Ross doubted that a monument sign would be visible from the road.
Mrs. Ross added that the sign is on the right of way. Because of
the Transportation Corridor Overlay District, where could the sign
go? Mr. Reyazi stated that the sign will have to be moved because
of widening of South Main Street. This would be an extra expense.
Consensus of the group was to deny the application because it
does not adhere to the code, although it would upgrade the appearance.
Mr. Wilkenfeld was reluctant to vote against it but he is
compelled to because of the ordinances.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO DENY APPLICATION. FOR THE REASONS STATED
IN 1189. 04. K. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED, WITH .M. IW?r-«V,K-E'N.K.12' 69-LS RELUCTANCE .
50 M L KvALb'
William and Florence. Hoffman, 317 West Broadway
The Hoffmans wish to replace the full-length kitchen window
with a shorter one and replace window on south side with a door.
MS ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Gary Haga, 746 Newark-Granville Road
Mr. Haga wishes to add a 470 sq. ft. sunroom. The siding will match the house, and the metal roof will have a 1-12 pitch. The
tree will remain. The proposed addition is within 100' of the right of way and is consistent with ordinances. The sunroom will
be barely visible from the street.
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION.
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MS ROBERTSON
Cathy Shurtz, Shepardson Condominiums, West Maple Street
Three No Trespassing signs have been erected on the property, and the neighbors have complained. No signs may be erected in residential areas except in the public interest or temp6rary signs.
Thomas Miller (100 Harmony Lane) was sworn in. He said the big signs were erected three weeks ago facing his house, and he was sOurthperirsendeigbhebcaoursse there has never been a problem with trespassers. were upset also, and when the manager of the condos finally responded they were told it was none of their business. It would be much better of the manager would just sneak to those allecredlv tresoassinG and ask them to ston.
A 6 d.Yf-Vt> -
4 pr
Mr. · Stansbury ·stated that since Ms. Shurtz is not present and
the signs code, the application sh6uld not be approved.
Members agreed with Mr. Wilkenfeld who said this violates good
taste and that if the property owner has a problem, she should call
the police. No complaints have been received from other people who
live on the bike path.
MR. MYERS MOVED TO DENY APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,
AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ms. Shurtz must remove the signs.
First Presbyterian Church, 110 West Broadway
The applicant wishes to build an 11840 sq. ft two-story addition
connecting the church and the Christian Education building,
following the two-phase procedure under 1161. 03. Mr. Acklin stated
that subsequent to work sessions they have made some changes,
following suggestions made by GPC and neighbor Bob Seith. The
alley belongs to the village and the project is in the right of way so an easement would have to be granted.
Mr. Seith (116 Locust) was sworn in, and he indicated there
are several parts to the plan and they need to be linked to be everything happens in sure an acceptable way. He recognizes the church
needs more space and appreciates the improvement in the west facade, but nobody wants to be boxed in.
There is no elevation provided for the front, and Steve Miller architect) says it is consistent with the building, and the trees will remain and landscaping will be added. Mr. Myers asked whether
they could maintain the four corners of the present church to pre- serve historical authenticity. Mr. Miller said that would lessen
the amount of square footage available. Mr. Acklin added that this
plan was derived over two years by several committees and numerous meetings. They considered a bare bones approach and cutting down where they could, but all cutting was turned down by the church members. They could not add onto the north because of the elevator. Mr. Myers is concerned about the appearance and would like to see a three-dimensional drawing with frontage. The new addition will
stick out beyond the existing wall of the church. The massing does not conform with the historical area. He is not so worried about parking availability and thinks the church could use part of the parking area for expansion. It' s important to maintain the histor- wichaiclhcihsaracter of the church, not the Christian Education Building, more resembles.
Ms. Robertson asked about the columns on the east side, and Mr. Miller said the windows are similar in style and the design is in keeping with historical design and the building there now. Ms. Robertson does not think it fits in with the church.
Mr. Acklin said they cannot add to the north side because of the el evator and hor!= 31!se .it does not meet the needs of the church.
Mr. Myers said there are other ways to design this addition and we
are here to discuss this significant part of the village.· ·The -- -
massing, shape, and details have to be considered very carefully.
He drew on the blackboard a possible design connecting the two
buildings with a corridor, which would maintain the four corners of
the church.
The basement is not highly useable and is mostly for utilities.
Mr. Acklin thought Mr. Miller could change the plans
slightly but probably this would not meet with Mr. Myers' s
approval.
In answer tolA questio,iMr. Miller described the architecture
as "eclectic" or "New England" style with materials blending in
with existing structures and maintaining architectural characteristics.
Mr. Myers suggested asking Frank Elmer, Design Consultant, to
look at these plans, not in an adversarial way, but to help us come
up with something good, and Mr. Reyazi said he will be talking with
Mr. Elmer tomorrow.
Despite Mr. Acklin' s disappointment, GPC members assured him
they were not trying. to hold him up but want to do the project
right. It' s in the heart of Granville and GPC cannot do in two
weeks what the church people have been planning for two years. GPC
members are willing to work extra Mondays in order to get this completed soon. The massing is a big concern; the church js exceeding by 30 per cent the total lot coverage4044*4.-t, d.L,, _
The church wil
meeting, hopefully,
I be on the agenda again at the next GPC
with a report from Mr. Elmer.
MYERS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE APPLICATION UNTIL THE NEXT
MR.
MEETING; MR.
APPROVED.
Work Session:
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
Certified Oil Company, 466 South Main Street
John Woods presented the proposed 1500 sq. ft. gas station/ convenience store to replace the old one. It is time to change their tanks, and this seemed like the best time' to upgrade the facility. The applicant has made modifications to accommodate recommendations by BZBA, GPC, and the Village Planner. . A
Mr. Reyazi stated that the application was receiveda -in*g*=the Moratorium,Aso it could not be placed on the agenda. A combined
access drie*was suggested, but Mr. Ross fears this would present more traffic problems. Mr. Stansbury suggested making the entrance tthoesIGeA three lanes. Storm water retention was another concern, but two matters can wait awhile. What GPC is asked to do now is consider the site plan, architectural review. TCOD, the canopy, tr'
1L4/1 4+kuy064« j'z/ A &1 1-.P.<
1
4
Mr. Myers is concerned about the shared driveway and feels
that it' s better to have fewer curbcuts. He also is concerned
about an unsightly storm basin right in front of the project. In
the TCOD everything should be 100' back, although in built-up areas
it could be less with appropriate landscaping.
The 1500 sq. ft. canopy can be considered a building. Mr.
Myers would not consider granting a variance for a building 37'
from the ROW, but with landscaping and careful planning, it might
be possible.
Mr. Woods said the shared curbcut with NAPA will improve the
appearance. The new tanks would be subject to EPA approval. There
will be no outdoor storage.
Regarding lighting, Mr. Woods said the lights hang dowI'
84 .
The canopy has to be 14' 6" to accommodate semi trucks. They
reduced lighting from 16 to 8, and added new Granville lights as
required in Granville' s Lighting Guidelines.
GPC members thought that spaces in front of gas pumps can be considered as parking spaces.
Regarding overall design, Mr. Woods said they cannot move the
store toward the rear because of the grade. They cannot make the
store smaller because of the need for utility space, walk-in cooler, and handicap-accessible bathrooms. Mr. Reyazi said it' s a matter of proportion of building to proportion of lot. The sign is
6' x6'. The canopy would be 37' from the right of edge of road, but the road will way and 67' from be widened.
Questions remaining will be addressed and applicant will come back at a later date. Rufus Hurst has determined that demolishing
the current structure and building a convenience store would constitute a conditional use and require a permit.
Denison University
Denison wishes to add three parking spaces in front of Stone Hall on North Plum for student parking. Mr. Wilkenfeld stated that he is reluctant to eliminate that little patch of greenspace, and others agreed that there is parking on West Broadway.
Finding of Fact:
MHSAGRAO, BERTSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR MORRISON, AND HUFFMAN, WHICH WERE APPROVED TONIGHT; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED AND FINDINGS OF FACT WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:
Next Meetings:
11: 30 p. m.
July 28 (Betty will be absent) and August 11
Respectfully submitted,
5
Oh
Betty Allen
0
1

GPC 01/27/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 27, 1997
Minutes
Members Richard Present: Maxine Montgomery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Members Salvage, Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury Absent:
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Ben Rader (Aladdin) , ru=nice Rader, Carol
Visitors Present:
Tunnicliffe (Primrose Artisans)
Minutes of December 16, 1996:
Mr. Salvage moved to approve minutes as presented and Mr. Shulman seconded. Minutes were unanimously approved.
Citizens Comments:
Old Business:
Aladdin Restaurant,
None
120 East Broadway
Ben Rader stated that they are improving the looks of Ohio' s finest diner."They want to add an awning with sign, add
a brass plate on the door, saying "Home of the Fudge Cake,"and
remove the sign at the top of the door. Colors will match
Cunard' s green.
Mr. Reyazi noted that the new signs combined will be smaller
than Aladdin' s signs currently. Although there are more signs than the ordinance would permit, they were there before the ordinance went into effect. Members agreed that the historic
genie should be allowed to remain in place.
Ms. Robertson appreciated that the signs are getting
smaller and wanted the dimensions stated in the motion. The
Fudgecake' statement constitutes a sign. Mr. Shulman suggested
that before Mr. Rader adds the 'Fudgecake' plague, he make sure
it is not in the shadow of the awning.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SIGN ON THE AWNING IS APPROXIMATELY
4. 6 SQ. FT. AND THE FUDGECAKE SIGN IS APPROMATELY 2 SQ. FT.
MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Primrose Artisans, 120%East Broadway
Ms. Tunnicliffe reported that the group wishes to replace
the sandwich board, which is starting to deteriorate, and the
sign on the door, which is 1%sq. ft. They will drop the word
Artisans.' The sandwich board will have a plexiglass area for
changeable notices, colors to be white with black letters and
teal and purple border and graphics, and will be the same size as
existing sandwich board.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE SIGN APPLICATION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING AS PRESENTED THAT THE DOOR SIGN SIZE IS 1%SQ. FT. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT FOR THE TWO SIGN APPLICATIONS. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8: 00 p. m.
Next Meeting: March 5, unless Mr. Reyazi calls a February meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
t
2

GPC 01/02/97

MEMO
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Granville Planning Commission
Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Januarj 2, 1997
GPC meeting on January 6, 1997
I hope every one has had an enjoyable holiday GPC meeting season. Due to lack of applications there will not be a on Monday January 6, 1997. (you can think of it as my gift to you )
There are a couple of issues that I would like to keep you informed about. As you may know Marc Shulman's term on the GPC has expired and he is not seeking reappointment to the commission. If
you have any suggestions in terms of replacements please let me know and ask the interested persons to submit a letter expressing their desire to serve.
I have recommended the following people; Keith Meyers,Jack Burris, Laurie Kissick,Anne Ormond, and Johnda Orndorff to the Village Council to serve on the steering committee to direct the consultant
Frank Elmer and Associates )assisting the village establish design standards. The consultant has
already begun preliminary work and I hope to arrange a meeting of the committee for next week so that we can map out the community participation and start the process. If you have any suggestions
please let me know. There is serious discussion of hiring Randall Arendt to assist with the review of the comprehensive plan, no decision has been made vet.
I wish you all a wonderful new year and hope that we can have a productive and fruitful 1997.
Review and Approval of Minutes:
A) December 16, 1996
MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
A)Next GPC Meeting -Monday,January 27, 1997 -7:30p.m. -Village Offices
B)Next GPC Meeting -Monday,February 3, 1997 -7:30p.m. -Village Offices

GPC 02/23/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 23, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Stansbury, Jack Burriss, Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Gary Bill Wernet, Carl Wilkenfeld. Members Absent:
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel)B, ill Heim, Tim Snider, John Oney, Allen Baker, Joe Ridgeway, George Fackler, Tom Scono, John Woods, Guy Razor, Ann Snider
Election of Chair and Vice Chair
MR. WILKENFELD NOMINATED GARY STANSBURY AS CHAIR; MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. WILKENFELD NOMINATED KEITH MYERS AS VICE CHAIR; MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of February 9, 1997:
plaPnage..1,."under Thornewood,1 )"(rezone (2) a development
Page 2, "10. Any development plano.f..rezoning."
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. BURRISS SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
New Business:
William G. Heim, 133 East College Street
The applicant is finishing up restoration. He wishes to
breumiolvte brick facade on the original cabin, a stonecutter' s shed around 1814. The rest of the home was built in 1823. (1) He
would like to take out a doorway because it is not convenient and
to (2) take off the brick veeneer from the back and preserve the original siding, door, and doorway with paint.
MR. WERNET MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.
MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Old Business:
Fackler' s 1960 Newark-Granville Road
A. Review. Mr. John Oney, architect, presented an overview
and stated they will not require ordinances for the proposed
complex. They have further refined the plans and incorporated GPC
suggestions from previous meeting. He described the new location
with parking in the rear, pedestrian walkways, curbcuts and a
roadway around the perimeter of the site. The parking slots have
been reduced from 150 to 100. The 70' setback line- is consistent
with other buildings nearby, and landscaping will be planted in
lieu of variation from 100' setback.
2
B. Site Plan. Allen alevationt>" Baker, architect, described the Granville. stating h- e':w-anted-to makea--f' it-w-itil'-hib-0erceptionof-- the building.The building is 30' high, and parking will be behind There are three large porch areas outside, repeated inside, and a wrought-iron fence at the service area. The bank wdriilvl elo-thorkoufignhisihsedbe. tween the bank and the main building. All sides Material is navajo white cedar stone with seal baereaac.h green trim. Air conditioning units will be in the "well"
C. Lighting. There will be very little signage on the building. Softer ground lighting will make the facility more inviting. Lights will be 50-70 watts with 100 watts lighting the chimney. Fixtures will be in the ground and hidden by landscaping. Lights in the parking area probably meet the code.
D. Signage. 1) A 24 sq. ft. sign will be in the stone retaining wall at the corner, with raised lettering and lit. 2)
Another sign on the exterior of the building. (3-6) Two two-sided directional signs at each entrance, 1 sq. ft, 3' high made out of the same stone with raised lettering and lit. 7-8) Bank signs.
9-)Signs below the soffits. Specification is required on lighting for these. The size of the facility and frontage on two roads demands more signage than in the code. Only the name of the complex will be on the retaining wall, rather than individual businesses.
E. Landscaping. Mr. Fackler stated they will adhere to the code with landscaping around the site and provide maple trees to shade the perimeter. They will soften driving lanes with 3'
mounding. Mounding proved to be controversial, and more design is sought. They like to see all-season color and low maintenance.
F. Utilities. Tim Snider reported on the sanitary/storm
sewer and stated they have discussed these matters with Mr. Murphy. He has also talked with Jerry Turner about questions raised in his
letter of February 18, 1998.
G. Staff Concerns. Refer to Mr. Reyazi' s letter of 2/18/98)
l. GPC members ask that there be curbing throughout.
2. The curb return radius must be 25' but Mr. Reyazi prefers 50' for right turns.
3. Some truck backing-up will be necessary. There needs to
be an off-street loading ramp.
4. Cross hatching of sidewalks should be subtle. Be sure to
cross-hatch handicapped accesses.
5. The width and material of sidewalks was controversial at
this meeting. Consider cobbling at the cross sections. Consensus
liked 8' sidewalks. Mr. Reyazi will check the pathway plan.
6. OK
7. OK
8. Directional signs and stop signs at intersections will be
on final plan. Find a more attractive post for stop signs.
9. Leave this to the engineers.
10. --- ' -A'»cc-ess will need to be shared with any future neighbor. 11':Sta'cking room 'seems to have«b' eah'-increased; but -any joint access in the future will need to be addressed. Left turns might be more difficult with a median strip on Cherry Valley. 12. and 13. Left turns were discussed at length. Joe Ridgeway, traffic engineer, stated that for their study they used existing traffic rather than anticipated traffic, which determined that no left turns will be required. Consensus preferred left turn lanes subject to agreement by the traffic engineer. GPC would like to see on N-G Road a 50' radius with curb and decelaration. On CV, a left turn at a size to be determined by staff. 14. Any new development will have to dictate where cross- access and joint-use driveways would go. 15. Ordinances require a street lighting plan. Additional lighting wOKill be required as CV is developed, but not now.
OK
16.
17.
18. Applicant to provide a lot coverage plan (65%). 2109.. Bike parking is not required but would be nice. OK
21. On display tonight.
22. OK
23. No AC units on roof.
varian2c4e. s.Some flexibility is understandable. GPC can grant sign Most of these signs will not be visible from the
street. With this facility, the signage would be less than what it would be for individual businesses. Mr. Burriss wants applicant to provide rendering of signs for entire complex in more detail, as well as foot-candle lighting.
25. 26. 27. 28. OK
29. Mr. Ridgeway does not think left turns onto N-G Road should be prohibited because it forces more traffic onto the intersection. Traffic should sort itself out. Mr. Wernet prefers
the right-in/right-out designation now in order to not confuse drivers by changing it later on. Others would like to see left
turns now and as the need arises, eliminate left turns. Mr. Myers
would make it a condition of zoning that it be addressed at a later time. Consensus agreed to full access on N-G Road until such time
as there is a connector to Galway and/or a significant traffic problem at the entrance.
Discussion.
1. Mr. Burris suggested placing the ATM machine inside the
bank, and Mr. Fackler will talk to the bank people.
The outside eating area must be pedestrian-friendly. 2
3. Underground pneumatic banks at the bank would be nice.
4. GPC is not quite ready for a vote
Mr. Myers summarized the discussion and pending items:
1. Parking islands and lots will be curbed; access drives will
not be curbed.
2. Curb radius to be brought into compliance with
1117 .03 (r) (c) .
3. Crosswalks within parking area to be marked on the plat.
3
4
4. Either constructed-.C- o-amnip8o'sit'asphalt or 5' concrete pedestrian path be after consultation withidnGPtCo. -bea-t d' iscretion of-staff planner
villag5e. . An additional 5' of ROW be granted from applicant to the
6. Traffic control plan to be submitted as specified in s1a1w1n7. c17edaanrd. posts for traffic control signs be constructed of rough
code. 7. Driveway approaches to be brought into compliance with EngineeAr.pproaches may be asphalt with approval of the Village
8. A left turn lane be contructed on C. V. Road at entrance to site and be built to the satisfaction of Village Engineer and Village Traffic Consultant.
9. Turning radius from N-G Road be increased to 50'. 10. Applicant to create a cross-access easement that will permit the property to the south access to the service drives in perpetuity.
11. Bicycle parking to be provided.
12. When an internal connection to Galway is made, the curb cut at N-G be made right-inr/ight-out ando/r when a significant traffic problem on N-G is shown to exist.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Certified Oil Company, 466 South Main Street
Certified would like to demolish the existing station and erect a new convenience store at rear of property.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE; MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
John Woods stated that the only changes they made to the previous plans were relative to storm water (Mr. Reyazi said the
storm water plan does not meet MORPSY standards) retention and landscaping in front of the islands. Additional comments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
siding.
They have a lighting plan using Granville standards.
Storm water retention would not be hard to do.
Hedges have been planned for landscaping.
They added one tree, making a total of four.
Materials are weathered wood shingle roof and brick
GPC members cited some problems:
Storm water retention pond will be in the TCOD and will be 1
unattractive.
2. Canopy is in the TCOD.
3. 75%lot coverage is too high.
4. Square footage of red, white, and blue monument sign is
considerably over code.
5. Any temporary window signs would require approval.
wherea6s. itTheshsoiugldn bise in the TCOD and only one foot inside the ROW, IOO' back.
7. The large building will overwhelm the small lot. 8. Village Council wants to adhere strictly to the code. their9. Certified cannot get a variance because the problem is of own doing.
adhere10t.oEtvheen cthoodueg.h the proposal would clean up the site, it must improvement. Mr. Wernet thinks this plan would not be an
line o11f . thTheeirIGA, next door, was not even permitted to change one existing sign.
12. Certified can still sell gasoline without a new store. 13. Mr. Burriss would like to see an overall plan showing other buildings present now.
mph. 14. A huge sign is not necessary when traffic drives by at 25
area. 15. Future South Main widening would decrease their frontage
16. Shared driveway access with IGA was not discussed.
Mr. Woods and his associate asked GPC to vote tonight.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.
MYERS SECONDED. THE VOTE WAS 4 OPPOSED AND 1 ABSTENTION (MR. SALVAGE).
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR OLD BUSINESS A, WILLIAM HEIM, AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT AND TO REJECT OLD BUSINESS ITEM B, CERTIFIED OIL. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND
FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 11: 59 p. m.
Next Meetings: March 9 and March 23
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
5

GPC 02/09/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION D' i.:44: February 9, 1997 60 »•r ,6,·-
Minutes
Members Present: Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Bill Wernet, Carl Wilkenfeld. Members Absent: KMer.ithBuMryreirwsas welcomed to GPC as a new member.
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel)B,ob Hersam, Bob Erhard, Jeff Kobunski
Minutes of January 26, 1997:
Page 2, under Thornew6od, Line 7 change to "a .si.n.gle icnutrobcut, the existing driveway to serve all four units, facing the hill."
Page 3, The Finding of Fact motion was made by Mr. Salvage.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. SALVAGE SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT MR. STANSBURY CHAIR THE MEETING
TONIGHT AND THAT WE NOT ELECT A NEW CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR
UNTIL WE HAVE FULL MEMBERSHIP. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Old Business:
Bob Evans Restaurant, Cherry Valley Road
Bob Evans has submitted a final plat for subdivision, having been granted approval by Village Council in November, 1996, and
subsequently by the voters. Mr. Reyazi does not see any discrepancies, and it is consistent with the preliminary plat and contains all necessary information, including the engineer' s signature. GPC members agreed that it was complete now.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE BOB EVANS' FINAL PLAT. MR.
BURRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Thornewood Subdivision, Lots 27, 28, 29, West Broadway
Mr. Erhard, attorney, Mr. Hersam, and Mr. Kobunski presented
a conceptual plan for building a four-unit dwelling on the three
lots but keeping lot 30 as greenspace. Eventually the applicants
will require two applications: (1) rezone teP-eDa-nd (2) a
development plan application. 1
GPC members approved the plan conceptually but had a number
of concerns:
V'
2
1. In order to recommended vary the 100' setback in the TCOD, it is that Lot 30 ando/r other woodlands be deeded to the Gsertabnavckil.le Land Conservancy or to the Village in lieu of the short added Mr. Wilkenfeld would like to see this suggestion be to the code.)
down. 2. Save as many trees as possible or replace those cut
Assoc3i.atLioinft. station will be maintained by the Condominium It will retain as many trees as possible.
three4. Consider three units rather than four, since there are lots. The units could be larger and minimize the traffic. uAnpitpsl.icants could make the same amount of money with larger
5. Exterior material should be finish cedar and stone as opposed to vinyl.
6. In order to enter garages from the rear, the front must be elevated. This must be an attractive material, well screened.
7. There should be parking for guests in addition to the two-car garages. There is no parking on West Broadway.
8. Consider a plan where sidewalks do not have to go all the way around the building.
9. Plan adequate planting and landscaping.
10. Any development plan approval must be contingent on
approval of rezoningiSS:PSr
11. Development plan must show all four elevations.
12. A grading plan is required.
13. Include location and screening of dumpster.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR OLD BUSINESS A,
BOB EVANS, AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. BURRIS SECONDED,
AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8: 30 p. m.
Next Meetings: February 23 and March 9
Respectfully submitted,
F .Ll
3
Betty Allen

12/05/97

MEMO
TO:
From:
Date:
Re:
Granville Planning Commission
Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
December 5, 1997
GPC meeting on December 8, 1997
Due to lack of applications your regularly scheduled meeting for Monday,December 8,has been
canceled. Your next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on Monday,December 22.
I am in the process of preparing some recommendations for the Fackler development,but I hope
to meet with the applicant before I present them to you.

GPC 08/11/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 11, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Richard Montgomery)K, eith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Members Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld Absent:
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel)B, ob Seith, Bob Rutherford, Matthew Kocsis, Mike Kocsis, Bob Pitt, Dave Lipphardt, Steve Miller, Bill Acklin, Joyce and Robert Munro, Matt McGowan, John Reagan, Frank B. Murphy, Janet Park, Thomas and Mary Annette Salpietra, Robert Lyon
Minutes of July 28, 1997:
Page 2, last two lines, delete "double" and add "different door with lots of glass in order to get..." MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. MYERS SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None.
Old Business:
1st Presbyterian Church
Architect John Reagan presented his findings following meet- ings with church members and with Steve Miller, church architect. Mr. Reagan' s firm does a lot of historical jobs, and in a small town it is important to protect what people value. This project requires people working together to meet the needs of the church and of the community, and he appreciates the enormous amount of work the church people have done. This is an extremely difficult site; whereas it is positive that a church needs to expand, the location is a focal point in a small town.
1) His main concern is with the massing and the configuration A bOuf iltdhaebbleuilding outside the lines of the church. Thee--nly feasible 1 / make area is between the two buildings, but it' s important to puritya borfeathkebetween the buildings to maintain the historical church. Granville needs to be very clear what it expects of an applicant.
2) He discussed with church members how the portico would reenforce or detract from the design. A two-story portico is Probably too high; the church would consider a one-story portico.
3) There may be ways to reduce the primary footprint of the baeddiditieonnt,ifiaendd. spaces which could be reduced or reassigned need to He believes that a compromise addition is possible.
Mr. Reagan suggested (1) providing a sketch or a three- pdrimopeonsseiodn. al modeling or CAD drawings so it is easier to see what is 2) GPC needs to make a firm determination about how much control they have and what they will require. They need to
guard against setting a precedent. Consider intensity relative location to the r·'M·ore control can be· exercised because of the location«in' ' town.
Mr. Acklin found the discussion with Mr. Reagan helpful, and his group will return to the drawing board; however, he is con- cerned about the added expense of this step. He said that many focus groups expressed their needs and Mr. Miller fitted them into the general plan. Mr. Myers thought that a front elevation was necessary. A computer-generated model or sketch would be nice, but a simple line drawing might help GPC understand how it will look.
Mr. Reagan further explained his ideas for improving the design of the building, looking at reproducing architecture, etc. It would be easier, he said, to make the whole plan smaller. He
wPaesrhatopsld that &third story or a basement were not .possarble. Educationthey should have considered a reworking of the Chris ian Building. There are locations within this plan that can be rethought to consider how the form of the building addresses the street, the corners, and the existing building. That has not been
driving the scheme. Given the location and historical aspect, these things are critical.
9 05W-o1 0/ CL to theCoEndcuecpattuioanllyB, uMilsd. inRgo,bebretstonththeinfekfss- ot-hf ethp-erobplleamn was itahn _addition 1 aigain9t,1* Mr. Salvage would like the church the , that would take advantage of both buildings. TtohecEondsuicdaetriona plan r -,/C./
building does not have much architecture to represent, and he wthoouuldght that bringing those buildings together architecturally be valid. Mr. Reagan thought either idea could achieve a solution, but a third building would bea- £cordual-between the two -4-#- ecnlehaanrclyedewxiisthtinlogtsforomfsw. indHoewtsh.ought a third floor could be used and FIAA,
Mr. Stansbury summed up the problems and requirements: 1)
the massing, which would also include lot coverage; (2) maintain the original building; (3) parking, but that isn' t a big problem; 4) front view is needed; and (5) provide more sketches. 6)
Consider lowering the portico.'E' hould be two stories high; Mr. RReeaaggaann tthhoouugghhtt it was too grad*for 'Ohat is here. In general, Mr. the amount of programs filled up the space and the building just surrounds the space like a mouse in a maze.
Mr. Salvage did not think this plan was unusual for a church and it was not unusual for Granville, but he wants to see an attractive view as one enters the Village. When one talks about
reducing the massing, how much of a percentage is meant?
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION PENDING RECEIPT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FROM THE APPLICANT. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
The Glen at Erinwood Phase II, Lots 46, 47, and 48, Frank Murphy
nal'
2
The applicant wishes 47, to re-plat the No Build Zone in Lots 46, and 48, which are located around the cul-de-sac at the northernmost portion of Brennan Drive on the hillside. GPC needs
to decide whether this plan is a minor modification. If so, they can approve this change. Or does it significantly change the
original character of the plan. Mr. Murphy explained his request
for the new line. The owner of Lot 46 would like to move the house baallcokwaway from the hill. Moving the no-build line for Lot 48 would more room. Lot 47 is the main concern, and in changing that line, the other two were changed also.
Janet Park, Lot 48, related that they are about to build on Lot 48 and might need some more room for a deck or patio, but they bmuigilhdt be able to shift the siting to remain within the existing no- zone.
Ms. Robertson stated that buildings need to be sited in breorlahotioodn. to each other; otherwise, you lose your sense of neigh-
Mr. Salvage thought the plan would not change the essential character of the lot line and that GPC can act upon it.
Omar Whisman neighbor to the north, read aloud a letter he had written to the GPC, expressing the fact that the application is unacceptable to him as is because a house would potentially block his view, decrease the value of his property, and amount to a loss of greenspace. Mr. Murphy thought a compromise could be possible, as did Ms. Park. Mr. Salpietra explained the location of his house on Lot 49.
Robert Lyon, owner of Lot 46, stated that from the relative
viewpoint of the houses being close together, on 46 it won' t change where he can locate his house because of the easement. He can' t
move any farther back, but the plan would allow him to build a vpaaltuioe.. He does not believe it would change the view or aesthetic
More discussion ensued on tree lines and no-build zones, and ultimately the parties directly involved were able to come to agreement. Since a patiod/eck is not a structure, it can extend 4o6utwanadrd and then Lot 48 can stay with original no-build line while 47 move back according to plan.
Ms. Robertson reminded the group that "no build" means more than just "no structure. " It includes not doing gardens and mowing. It is to preserve a natural state and protect what is there. Mr. Wilkenfeld agreed and said that changing 40 per cent of that area was not the original plan and did not think this zone should become lawns and patios. Mr. Myers thought the issue less crucial in this location than it might be on a major roadway.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION TO MODIFY NO-
3
BUILD LINE ON LOTS 46 AND 47 BUT NOT APPROVE IT ON LOT 48.
MR. MYERS SECONDED, 'AND-IT· WAS UNANIMOUSLY ·APPROVED.
Mr. Wilkenfeld was excused to go home and nurse his bad back.}
Rules and Regulations for GPC. "
Some minor changes were discussed the main consideration on the latest update, and individuals directly was on VIII. F. in regard to the meaning of in affected.W" hen there are a bunch of people affethcetedro.om who want to speak, it' s hard to determine who is Mr. Myers stated that in Columbus there is a rule that
Only six people can speak on an issue, and that forces them to Organize. Mr. Salvage thinks anyone who feels affected should be allowed to speak.
Mr. Myers added that ex parte communication should not be allowed.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
GRANVILLE· PLANNING COMMISSION AS AMENDED. MR. MYERS SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE GLEN AT
ERINWOOD PHASE II AS AMENDED AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT; MS.
ROBERTSON SECONDED AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:
Next Meetings:
10: 15 p. m.
August 25 AND September 8.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4

GPC 04/21/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 21, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Montgomery,
Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Keith Myers, Richard Also Present: Salvage Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors Present:
Miller, Bob Seith,-
Richard Downs
Lyn Robertson, Gary
Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),Dave Kishler, Steve Doug Williams, Bruce Henderson, David Wakeman,
Minutes of April 7, 1997: Page 1, Line 3 under Cavanaugh, change with" to the. Page 3, Line 5, change l' it" to a parking plan. Delete last line of Paragraph 1, and change a" pplication" to Finding of Fact in the previous line. MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO
APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Camments: none
New Business:
David and Lynne Kishler, 327 West Elm
condiTtihoeneKri.shlers wish to add a two-story addition and relocate air Mr. Reyazi stated that the air conditioner will be in
the back of the house and BZBA will need to consider a variance.
Mr. Kishler said that siding will match the house, and roof line will be same height as the house; in the rear, the addition will
match width of the house. The current porch is one story and the
new one will be one story unscreened.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION PENDING BZBA
APPROVAL OF VARIANCE. MS. ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND IT WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Bernard Williams, The Elms Pizza, 113 East Elm
The applicant wishes to replace current awnings on windows and
door with forest green cloth awnings with white lettering totalling
860 sq.in. He also wants lettering on the wall, and he will be
below the maximum signage allowed.
Ms. Robertson recalled that all lettering must be on the vertical
drop of awnings rather than on the slanted face. Mr. Doug
Williams said he was willing to put the letters on the drop, and
Ms. Robertson would be in favor of 8" letters there.
GPC members would prefer to get a better picture of propor- tions and how it will look. Mr. Williams left to get
more dimensions.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO TABLE UNTIL HE GETS BACK. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr.W._il.li.ams returned .and . said .t.here .is. a 10d".r.op,s_o.....8.... .. letters will be ok. Ms. Robertson would like Mr. Reyazi to look at the layout before it is installed, although Mr. Reyazi thought this was a purely aesthetic matter.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH 8" LETTERS ON THE VERTICAL DROP. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Sessions:
First Presbyterian Church, 110 West Broadway
Mr. Acklin, Chair of the Capital Development Committee, explained the goals for church expansion. Accompanying him were Bruce Henderson, the minister, and Steve Miller, the architect. The church needs more room for its various church and community activities and also utility improvement. The plan is to connect the church and the Christian Education building across the alley- way, providing access from Locust Street to Main behind the building. The church building is completely within the public bsquuiladrien,gsan. area set aside by the founders of the village for public The addition will look like a front entrance and will
contain an elevator and new boiler and air conditioner.
Mr. Acklin will provide copies of the original public square plat. Mr. Wilkenfeld would like to see what the west side will
look like.
Bob Seith stated that he lives on Locust facing the proposed addition and thinks the plans do not address the needs of the houses on Locust in terms of light and line of sight. Locust Place
is the only L-shaped public square left of the four original
squares and should be protected as community-owned open space. It
would be eliminated with this expansion. There may be other alternatives
to the current plans which might allow more light to pass through, i.e.,a skylight and glass material or add a third story to the Christian Ed. building. He described other churches which
utilized unique methods to preserve light and line of sight.
Mr. Acklin said the committee is conscious of Mr. Seith' s
position, and one thing they can do is lower the roofline. But it
needs to house the elevator so cannot be lowered very much. He did
not know that they could fully accommodate Mr. Seith.
Mr. Seith asked who is going to be the deciding body on whether or not the alley could be vacated. Mr. Reyazi said it is a
public square, not an alley, and it will have to go to the Village
Law Director and Village Council. GPC will consider the
architectural designs. Village Council granted permission in
January, 1996, for expansion as long as access remains to Main
Street, but the Law Director still needs to decide on the issue.
He will wait until a _formal application is made before he makes_a
decision. as_to. done. how V.C. will. proceed .in. terms of how .this_c_an be-... V.C. thought no vacation is required. The church feels that permission to proceed has been granted. Ms. Montgomery will take this issue to V.C. regarding access to Main Street. A decision
needs to be approved by GPC. They will have to apply for a vari- ance for parking.
Mr. Stansbury asked about the storm sewer, and Mr. Acklin has wtaalkteerd. to Mr. Tailford and Mr. Hickman about redirecting flow of
Mr. Reyazi wondered whether GPC was comfortable enough with the general plan for them to proceed. Mr. Wilkenfeld would 11ike
to see. minutes of the meeting where V.C. decided this issue. He would also like to consult the Law Director. On the surface every- thing looks fine, but he wants to see west side appearance and hear more input on parking. Ms. Robertson is uncomfortable that Mr. Seith was not notified when the village considered the expansion. pVu.Cb.licneeds to make the decision on this application because it' s on land. They and the Law Director need to decide procedures.
Ms. Robertson thought these issues should be decided before we consider the application formally, but Mr. Reyazi disagreed, saying cifattiohen. church provided what we need, they can provide formal appli- It is uncertain whether V.C. can decide before our next meeting. The church wants to know whether there are other issues outstanding. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked Mr. Acklin whether the church
would want to go ahead with the possibility that they might not gain approval. Mr. Acklin said he has talked with Mr. Hurst and
Mr. Hickman and were advised this is the way they should proceeda-- work session with GPC and hear concerns. Formal application will
be filed at the appropriate time. Ms. Robertson stated the issues
outstanding as (1) drainage, (2) west elevation, (3) addressing Mr. Seith' s concerns, (4) more input on public square. Mr. Stansbury
added (5) easement and right of way issues and (6) landscaping plan.
Mr. Acklin stated that the church will grow to 800 members in
ten years, and should one house, unfortunately located where it is,
stand in the way of progress of the church? They plan to present
a west-side view and to lower the roofline. He doesn' t think
anything can be done about blockage of sunlight. He would like
another work session. He will check with Sandy Yorka regarding
sunlight .
Denison University, North Plum and West College Streets
59-M<
Dave Wakeman explained the parking shortage on the corner
caused by housing students in King and Stone Halls. There are 19
parking spaces now and they need 44. One problem is the slope of
land on north side, and he suggested a 3' wall on top of a retaining
brick wall. 1) One of the three proposals he presented adds
22 parking spaces and has an entrance on South Plum and a 9-12'
greenspace between sidewalk a_nd_wall. _It_ will _curve around the
htreemelocbkust .they. would lose two other. large trees. They would plant street. on Plum to screen the lot, which faces houses across the 2) Proposal 2 would add 20 spaces because it access the current parking at King Hall. A brick wall would surround the entire lot. 3) Under Proposal 3 they would ' exchange the brick wall with landscaping.
Ms. Montgomery would prefer no more curbcuts, and the others agreed. She reported that the code (1183. 04.B) states that a wall is preferable to landscaping. Mr. Reyazi stated that a parking lot is a conditional use requiring approval from BZBA. Also, neighbors are concerned about the lot, and he would like to discuss alterna- tives like adding onto existing parking space. Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested adding steps leading to the lot*Members did not like the entrance on Plum Street; a wall is better in order to avoid headlight nuisance. Plum Street side could have a wall with scattered trees. ufb / 14-p
Finding of Fact:
IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADOPT THE TWO APPLICATIONS
APPROVED TONIGHT AND FINDINGS OF FACT WERE UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Adjournment: 9: 55 p.m.
Next Meeting: May 5 and 29
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

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.