Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes 12/28/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 28, 1998

Minutes

Members Present: Members Jack Burriss,Keith Myers,Gary Stansbury,William Wernet,Carl Wilkenfeld Absent: Richard Salvage

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

r aVnisditCoarsroPlyrnesCeanrtt:eSr,cRoottbRerat wanddoDno S(roetnhytinelD),uane Goodwin,Dan Stevens,RebACrowley,Clarence Essman,Joan Hepsworth,Mark Zarbaugh

Minutes of December 14: Page 2, Paragraph 2, Line 2, U "sually. although not necessarily. this person...,"

Page 3, Line 2 under Blake: M" r. Blake said he had asked for approval in the original application, but the driveway was in the wrong place in that application. It was Mr. Blake's understanding that Mr. Reyazi had given approval for the driveway."

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. BURRISS

SECONDED,AND MINUTES WERE UNAN[ MOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

Old Business.

First Presbyterian Church,110 W.Broadway

Mr. Burriss excused himselffrom this application. }

This application had been tabled at the last meeting. The contractor for the construction is

asking for approval for his revised temporary wooden sign showing four subcontractors' names. The

sign is to be 4'xzl',2' offthe ground,and placed on east side ofthe church,15' from sidewalk.

Mr. Crowley, from Robertson Construction, explained the location and colors of the sign

which will be white background, with black, blue or dark green letters. They will locate the sign carefully,in accordance with the ordinance.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED WITH

TWO COLORS TO BE BLUE ON THE TOP WITH GREEN LETTERING BENEATH.

SIGN IS TO BE 4'X4',HELD UP BY TWO 4X4s AND THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN

WILL BE 2'OFF THE GROUND. IT WILL BE 15' FROM THE ROW OF MAIN AND 15'

FROM BROADWAY ROW. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Lumber Company,401 SouthMain

Application was tabled at last meeting. Duane Goodwin, Contractor, explained that the

applicant would rather not go along with the recommendations from the last meeting to retain the exact

sign in order to retain the attractive grandfathered rather than adhere to the code. The new

nonconforming sign,in the TCOD,perpendicular to the road,would be 3 V2' offthe ground.total 9.75

1 i

2

sq.ft,and letters 8'6"high,rather than the existing 12'high one. The new redwood would have a sandblasted with gray background on wood posts.

Mr. Burriss suggested the old, historic,sign be donated to the Granville Historical Society. Mr. Goodwin said he would discuss this suggestion with the Granville Lumber Company owner. Members discussed safety of the sign and determined it would be acceptable. GPC has discretion on what they can approve in that TCOD area,and agreed they ailliked the old sign better.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

New Day Spa,1287 Cherry Valley Road

Mr. Stansbury recused himself from this application and turned the meeting over to the Vice Chair, Mr. Myers. }

Ms. Wimberger explained that applicants would like to operate a message business,making minimal changes to the building,and are requesting a sign. They also own the home at 1285 Cherry Valley and this will continue to be used as a home.

The applicants provided two proposals, one with parking to the rear and the second with parking on the east side. Ms. Hepsworth said there are problems with placement behind the building. Ms. Carter explained that with parking in the front there would be more separation from the residence and it would not interfere with septic systems. Also, the back yard is lower and would require drainage. Customers would be safer if entering the building from the front door,and car lights would be less intrusive.

Mr. Wilkenfeld does not like the idea of parking along Cherry Valley Road. Others agreed, especially with a residence next door. Mr. Wernet reminded the group that according to the ordinance,

parking must be in the rear. After discussion consensus wanted parking in the rear.

Mr. Myers suggested that for better appearance, retaining the garage door as is, although

inoperable,would be an option. Mr.Burriss suggested adding a window to match existing window.

Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested placing the one handicapped space in the front, close to the front

door,with the remaining five spaces in the rear.

The sign would be directly in front of the building, 50' from street pavement and 20 feet from

existing driveway. The sign will be no greater than 9.6 square feet in area.

Mr. Myers summarized the discussion:

1. Parking to be in the rear,with entrance offthe parking lot.

2 Place one handicapped space in front.

3. Waste cans to be stored in garage.

4 The fire door in the front is to remain a facade as though it were a real front door.

5. Blacktop on parking lot will double as sidewalk.

6 Sidewalk to remain from existing front door to existing driveway. Ms. Hepsworth said it might

5 *. '

December 28,1998

3

need to be widened.

7. Rdeelmivoevrye 5' of concrete right in front ofgarage. Ms. Hepsworth said they would like to allow trucks there.

8. Add new window in garage door.

9. Remove guardposts on one side.

10. When Village deems it necessary,add sidewalk along Cherry Valley Road. 11. Parking lot to be lit from two corners ofbuilding with cuto-fflighting as per ordinances. 12. dSectreeremnipnaartikoinng. lot on C.V. Lodge side and from adjacent property owners. Staffto make final

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO VILLAGE COUNCIL THAT APPLICATION BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO:

1. PARKING IN REAR

2. 42"OF SCREENING TO BE PLACED ALONG SIDES OF PARKING LOT FACING NEIGHBORS,TO NORTH

3. A LIGHT ON THE SPA BUILDING AND ONE ON EXISTING GARAGE FOR PARKING LOT

4. CUT-OFF LIGHTING TO ADHERE TO CODE

5. TRASH BIN TO BE STORED IN GARAGEM ( IDDLE BUILDING)

6. ON WEST ELEVATION,T-111 WILL REPLACE GARAGE DOOR WITH WINDOW COMPARABLE TO EXISTING WINDOW PROPOSED FOR THE

OTHER SIDE OF THE FRONT DOOR,WITH SAME SIDING.

7. ON WEST,5' OF LANDSCAPING AREA INCLUDING REMOVING 5' PIECE OF DRIVEWAY

8. WALKWAY INTO EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO FRONT DOOR TO REMAIN

We have drawn in these changes on the original proposal. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,

AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Day Spa, 1287 Cherry Valley Road

The sign was considered separately from above application. Ms. Hepsworth said it would be

green,yellow,burgundy on blue background. She displayed the actual,unmeasured sign to be erected,

l' offthe ground on 4x4s,and solar lit,50'back from the ROW. Ms. Wimberger determined it to be 2

14/'x 4 14/ ',which falls within code9 .(5-6 sq.f.t.).It would be a ones-ided sign facing the street.

Members wanted to see exact colors, and Ms. Wimberger will acquire a color chart from Sherwin-

Williams. She will make staffdetermination on colors of sign

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO VILLAGE COUNCIL THAT THE SIGN

AS PROPOSED BE APPROVED WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL COLORS BE

APPROVED BY STAFF. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Myers recommended that New Day have its architect adjust these drawings and have him

December 28. 1998

4

check this for accuracy before application goes to Village Council.

Mr. Stansbury rejoined the membership and expressed dismay at the on this application and the redrawing required by the amount oftime consumed and this should Board. As presented,the work was incomplete checklist have been a work session. Consensus agreed that filture applicants should be given a and sample applications to study.

Work Session: AccessMonagement

Mark Zarbaugh explained the goals of access management as being congestion prevention and access control, and maintaining acceptable and safe traffic operating conditions along arterial and collector streets. His plans are modeled after the LCPC regulations,although they differ somewhat from those ofthe Comprehensive Plan Committee drawings. Consistency is important.

Only new subdivisions are applicable in these plans. A developer is required to pin and mark the plat indicating the required future right ofway setback. Then later,ifnecessary,it can be purchased for infrastructure improvements.

The Board discussed the different categories ofroads. Mr. Zarbaugh said they have gotten out RFPs to learn what developers south ofNewarkG- ranville Road and South ofRt. 16 will contribute to road changes.

Mr.Myers wondered whether the Master Plan Committee must change their plans to adhere to LCPC categories. He also stressed the importance of protecting rural roads. A road with a higher classification commands more control.

Mr. Zarbaugh said some roads are both residential and commerciali .(e.,NewarkG- ranville),

and could command two categories. He and Ms. Wimberger will revisit this plan and perhaps create a new classification to take care ofGranville- specific rural roads.

Finding of Fact.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A AND B UNDER OLD

BUSINESS ( Church and Lumber Company)AND Al AND A2 (NEW DAY SPA AND ITS

SIGN)AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND

FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 10:40 p.m.

Next Meetings January 11 and 25.

GPC Minutes 12/14/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 14, 1998

Minutes

WMeilkmebneferlsdPresent: Jack Burriss,KeithMyers,Richard Salvage,Gary Stansbury,William Wernet,Carl

Members Absent.

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon S(entinel),Rufus Hurst, David Neel, Duane Goodwin, Stephen Blake,Dan Stevens

Minutes of November 9: Page 1, under Visitors,change Gary to Greg Ream. Sixth line up from bottom,change b"eyond"in Line 1 to into. Change Voice Vote to Roll Call B(urriss.No.Myers.Yes. Salvage.No. Stansbury.Yes.Wilkenfeld.Yes)

Page 3, line 2, change v"oice vote"to ROLL CALL VOTE OF 3 TO 2 B(URRISS, YES; MYERS,YES,SALVAGE,YES;STANSBURY,NO;WILKENFELD,NO)T,HE MOTION WAS APPROVED. Under Bank First National,Line 3, change to Mr. Salvage stated that only the changes

to the sign should be reviewed because the size of the previous free- standing sign on Prospect Street was granted a variance. Other members ofGPC disagreed.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. SALVAGE

SECONDED,AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Question andAnswer Sessionwith Ixtw Director,Rufus Hurst

Before the regular meeting,Mr. Hurst was requested to address the GPC with respect to properprocedures ofmeetings.

Mr.Hurst statedthat in an application thepublic is not invited to speak,although it is open to the public.In these administrative hearings one or more members of the public may be called on to

testij> and must be placedunder oath. All who plan to speak may be sworn in en masse.In a public

hearing there is no requirement that speakers be placed under oath. It's their opportunity to comment

on the wisdom of a legislative proposal.What is the difference between a public hearing and a hearing open to the public,andwhat is it that gives an individual the right to participate in a hearing

open to the public but not apublic hearing?

There is some discussion about revising some of our coded*ordinances toA ()make things

more clear and 1 (3m)ake changes tomake things enforceable. A lot ofpeople feel that as to certain

basic principles applicable to charter municipalities we ought to be able to structure our procedures

in a way we see fit based on home rule provisions. The courts seem to be allowing us to apply our

own criteria,butwe can't turn an open hearing into apublic hearing.

If the Planning Commission is making the jinal decision,that is an administrative hearing

and open to the public. It is not a public hearing,and their decision must be based on criteria,not

public opinion. Public hearings,or legislative hearings,are those hearings wherein when the GPC is

I

2

2

aN done,all it does GPC is make a recommendation to Village Council as towhat it should do because the represents the begmning of a legislative process.i.e.r,ezoning. Under PUD there is a charter which says all ordinances must be passed by Village Council with GPC recommendation. In an administrative hearing decision,if someone is not happy with the decision,hish/er appeal to Common Pleas. If hesh/e is successful in saying that public opinion plaryeecdourse is to influencedthe thoughtprocess ofthe Board,hesh/ewill be able to get the decision a role or is basedi,npart,onpublic opinion. reversed because itV

If a person canprove s "tandingh,e"s/he has a right to be heard and has to be able to particularized interest"and a personal stake in the outcome. Usually this prove adjacent or contiguous to the subjectproperty. The applicant person has property present testimony in supportofthe application andmay crossem-xaamyionre.ma,not call on any experts to

To the question of who determines standing,Mr.Hurst replied that as a general rule the

chairman runs the meeting and the chairwouldmake the initial preliminary call. However,the chair,

upon challenge by another member will ask the Other members and make a call on whether to hold

the information.If someone can identijj;himh/erself,it might appear that in goodfaith hesh/e will

present relevant evidence andyou accept hish/er standing. Ifyou are unsure,you can askwhat this

persons' particularizedinterest is,vs.a community interest. Ifhesh/e refuses to answer.youwill have

to determine whether to use this evidence. The applicant can help to determine this person' s standing.

Ifyou hear someone speak andyou don' t think it's applicable after all,you can say it's the conclusion

of this Board that this person's testimony is not relevant and should not be used in the Finding of

Fact.

r.

2.

Administrative Hearings:

Applications

Hearings open to the public

Not open to citizens'comments

To speak,citizens must have s'tanding'

Speakers must be sworn ine n(masse)

Citizens may be calledon to tesatn*dmqy be

Crosse-xamined

GPCmakesfinal decision

Decision is basedon criteria

Legislative Hearings:

Public Hearings

The public may speak

Speakers do not have to be sworn in

GPCmakes recommendation to Village Council

Decision based inpart onpublic input

If you allow people to speak in a nonp-ublic hearing,you are setting yourself reversal.Anyone dissatfiie*d with the decision who can convince reviewing authority up for a decision was tainted by those commentswillfind the decision reversed that your should be allowedto speak. Everyone with standing

These ordinances are 33 years old,and when they began,anyone could speak at any time. People may speakal Citizens Comments. Now it is time to review the planning and zoning sections.

Citizens Comments:None

New Business:

Stephen Blake,212 East Elm

The applicant is asking for approval for his alrdady built driveway,which replaced a gravel back yard. Mr. Blake said he had asked for approv before but it was in the wrong placeM.-s. Wimberger said that neighbors'concerns have been withdrawn. 4*

E_1_ MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.

MYERS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Gramnlle GolfCourse Company

The applicant would like to proceed with the dedication of the land in the Bryn Du Woods development,Phase IV,to be designated as open space. This is an administrative act of the GPC. A lot split is necessary to accomplish this,and everything is in order,Ms. Wimberger said. The land will

become property ofthe village and the homeowners'association will take care ofrepairs.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION. MR. WILKENFELD

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

First Presbyterian Church,110 West Broadway

Mr.Burriss excused himselffrom this application. }

Dan Stevens from Robertson construction wants to erect a temporary sign showing four subcontractors'

names. GPC members agreed the sign was too big and would not benefit the village; it

should be no more than 16 sq.ft. Building the church is a community project rather than a commercial advertisennent.

The names on the sign should match,GPC members agreed. The sign should be subdued and

limited to two colors.

The applicant asked to table application until next meeting,when he will bring in a revision.

I.

r - .'

3

4

The sign can stay up for a year from time ofinstallation.

Granville Lumber Company,401 South Main

color anDduane Goodwin explained that the applicant would like to install a new sign,same logo and location,but smaller to fit within the code.

The problem is that the sign cannot be placed outside the TCOD,and the height requested for the new sign because of safety issues,is 6'from the ground to the bottom ofthe sign and cannot be a ground sign because ofthe view.

Mr. Stansbury stated that by changing the sign,applicant runs into TCOD and height problems. Remarkably enough,GPC members recommended applicant to leave the grandfathered sign as it is and just repair the decay;then he won't run into problems with the ordinance.

Mr. Goodwin asked to table the application until he can talk with the applicant.

Finding ofFact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS B (lake and Golf Course)AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR WILKEELI* SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:8:50p.m.

Next Meetings: December and 28 andJanuary 11.

GPC Minutes 11/30/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 30, 1998

Revised Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss,Keith Myers,Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury,Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent: William Wernet

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon S( entinel)K,athryn Dunlap,John Thornborough,Bernard

Lukco,Mary Albright,Fred Abraham,David Bussan,Rochelle Steinberg, Bill Rossiter,Roger

Kessler,Robin Bartlett,Mike Waggoner,John Coney,Greg Ream,Jim Harf,Norman

Kennedy,Kathryn Raker '

Minutes of November 9: MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS

PRESENTED. MR. MYERS SECONDED,AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

Old Business:

John Thornborough 1(38 North Main)R,onald Fenstermaker 1(30 NorthMain)K,athryn and

Edith Dunlap (109 East College)

This application was tabled at the last meeting because of a lack of a quorum.)

The applicants are asking to rezone to VBD the three VRD parcels listed above. The first

house would be converted to an artists' studio and gallery, and the others will remain residential.

Mr. Myers likes the proposed use but is concerned about the wide array of uses permitted

under VBD zoning, and permitted uses do not have to come before GPC. If they sought PCD

they could write their own standards for those lots and state which uses are permitted. But space

is limited for PCD.

Bernard Lukco was duly sworn in and expressed concerns about extending the VBD on

College Street. He does not think there are any businesses on College at this time. In this case

since it is a residential building, he can understand why the residential houses need to be changed

to VBD. Mr. Thornborough recognizes a future risk but that is true for the entire block. The

three are combined in a parcel to preclude spot zoning. Mr. Wilkenfeld is nervous about the

openendedness of the permitted zoning and would like to explore other options. Mr.

Thornborough says two ofthe properties are still residential.

Kathryn Dunlap, after being sworn in, stated her support for Mr. Thornborough because

of the negative impact of students living next door to her.

Mr. Stansbury is not in favor of changing the zoning because we are encroaching into the

residential areas of the village. The fact that most ofthat area is already VBD does not make that

a correct move. He understand Mrs. Dunlap's concern about students, but we need to respect

what the Village wants to be. Mr. Salvage added that parking is another our concern.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO DISAPPROVE APPLICATION,AND MR. WILKENFELD

SECONDED. BY ROLL CALL VOTE OF VOTE OF 3 TO 2 (BURRISS,NO;MYERS,

YES; SALVAGE,NO;STANSBURY,YES;WILKENFELD,YES).

Mr. Wilkenfeld repeated there is sentiment that the application is not necessarily a bad

project and wishes there were a way to change it. The issue ofVBD zoning should be investigated

further. There is division among the board but according to the code,we feel it needs to be

decided this way.

New Business:

Bill Rossiter,332 North Granger Street

The applicant wishes to construct an 87 sq.ft. nonenclosed porch/ mud room on the rear of

the house and add a new door facing south. The work has already begun,and no neighbors have

expressed disapproval. Materials will match the house.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS HANDED TO US.

MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Board of Education, 130 North Granger Street

Norm Kennedy,representing the school, stated that the Board wishes to divide the area

into three lots. Variances needed would be (1)front width and ( 2)minimum square footage,

although others lots in the area are smaller than the code requires. They propose a shared 10'

driveway through the rear with ingress/egress offN. Granger Street and no curb cuts on East

College.

Mr. Myers stated that although other houses are built on smaltlots, they were built at a

time when such sizes were appropriate, and you are not going to recreate those old houses. It

would be difficult to get a contemporary house on these lots and have any area around them. Jim

Harf,representing the school, stated that the reason they had to make the plans for that depth is

that GPC required extensive landscaping and he remarked at that time that this would create a

problem.

Mr. Stansbury asked why they did not plan for just two houses. He thought it made sense

in relation to the other houses, but he is reluctant to grant variances over and over again. Mr. Harf

replied that they wanted three lots rather than two in order to maximize their return.

Mr. Salvage stated that with the rear access that would alleviate a lot of problems. There

has been a lot of research on whether these lots are saleable and they have received some interest.

This is a good way to maximize tax dollars.

The Chair announced tbat this application is not a public hearing i(t's an adjudication)a,nd,

according to the Law Director,the public will not be allowed to speak. This announcement was

generally felt to be unjust. Ifthis application is denied,the School Board can appeal to Village

Council,where public comments will be allowed. Citizens comments would also be heard at

BZBA ifthis is approved. }

Mr. Wilkenfeld would like to see the parking lot on the plans. Mr. Kennedy said there is

1.

2

1

open space east ofthe parking area,and Mr. Harf added that GPC required landscaping on the

NE portion.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE LOT SPLIT AS SUBMITTED,

SUBJECT TO BZBA APPROVAL. MR. MYERS SECONDED,AND BY ROLL

CALL VOTE OF 3 TO 2, B(URRISS,YES;MYERS,YES;SLAVAGE,YES;

STANSBURY,NO;WILKENFELD,NO). THE MOTION WAS APPROVED.

Mr. Myers is uncomfortable about the lack of input from citizens,for that might have

influence on our decision- making process. We need to sit down with the Law Director and

discuss this matter. Mr. Wilkenfeld would like to apologize to everyone who came tonight to

speak and were not able to do so.

Broadway Blooms, 116 North Pearl Street

Mr. Burriss recused himselffrom this discussion. }

Kathryn Raker is asking for a new location for the flower shop where the Board of

Education used to be. This is a permitted use,but it is a change in use and requires GPC review.

The ordinance requires four parking spaces. The driveway can be widened to accommodate two

more cars. Mrs. Raker said the owner picks up the flowers and there is no on-site delivery.

Mr. Salvage stated that four cars parked there when the School Board rented the space.

Two cars parked behind two others. Mr. Myers said that in a residential neighborhood less

asphalt is better and thought the apron could stay as is but widen the driveway somewhat. Mr.

Stansbury thought the garage could not be considered a parking space.

Trash will be stowed either in the garage or behind it.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION. MR. WILKENFELD

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bank First National, 222 East Broadway

The bank plans to move across the street,and they are applying for signage in the same

places and the same size as the former bank. Roger Kessler described the signs,which proved to

be larger than maximum allowed. Mr. Salvage stated that only the changes to the sign should be

reviewed because the size of the previous free-standing sign on Prospect Street was granted a

variance. Other members of GPC disagreed. For the sign over the door,the "1"logo before the

words "Bank First National"is the determining size for the sign and therefore needs to be

reduced.

Regarding the reflex blue color presented, GPC members preferred a more subdued color,

such as black or dark blue.

The free-standing sign is translucent and internally lit. Mr. Kessler said he would opaque out the

blue so only the letters would be lit. GPC members thought the sign should be revisited to fit the

ordinances, and Mr. Kessler asked for a six-month opportunity to redesign it.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION CONTINGENT UPON:

3

WALL SIGN: ( 1)MAXIMUM SYMBOL LETTERING HEIGHT ON WALL SIGN ON

BUILDING TO BE 12"2; )(COLOR TO BE MATTE BLACK. SIGN ON THE

PROSPECT STREET SIDE BE APPROVED WITH TWO CONDITIONS: ( 1)THAT

THE BLUE BACKGROUND BE OPAQUED OUT TO NOT PERMIT LIGHT; 2()

THIS SIGN IS TEMPORARY AND MUST BE RESUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL BY

MAY 24, 1999;APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS IF THE NEW SIGN IS NOT

SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THAT DATE,THE SIGN MUST BE

REMOVED. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Work Session:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO PERMIT THE UPCOMING WORK SESSION TO

BEGIN AFTER 10 P.M. MR. MYERS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED. }

Fred Abraham,460 South Main Street

The work session is for Mr. Abraham to gain guidance in his remodeling prOJect. Mr.

John Oney began by saying in July they were advised to get into one zoning category, and now

the area is CSD. He showed site plan, where Taylor's,The Thrift Shop,Knuckleheads,and Abe's

Body Shop will be located. They want to clean up this gateway to the village. It will have a

canopy and stonework and silver to tie it in with the Mill. Two phases are proposed,beginning

with Taylor's and the Thrift shop. Phase II will include Abe's and the bike path;and Phase III will

integrate the old fertilizer warehouse as an office area.

The issues of concern are 1( )variances, 2 ()building in the flood plain, and 3( )parking

requirements. They have 138 parking spaces on site, and the parking could be combined with

IGA. There will be no internally lit signs and there will be low wattage under the canopies and no

display windows in Taylor's. All four facades of buildings will be presentable.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A UNDER NEW

BUSINESS ( Thornborough et al.)AND A,B,C,D UNDER NEW BUSINESS AS

FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND FINDING

OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 10:40 p.m.

Next Meetings: December 14 and 28.

GPC Minutes 11/9/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 9, 1998

Minutes

Members Present: William Wernet Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury,

Members Absent: Jack Burriss, Carl Wilkenfeld

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner

VCiasritteorr,s PPraetsreicnita: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),Joan Hepsworth, Carolyn Egan, Susan Bruns, Kathryn Dunlap, John Thornborough, Mike Waggoner, Steve Cramer

Minutes of October 26: Last line under Minutes of October 2 add appropriate before "rezoning..."

Page 2, Under Contini, Line 5, change to: b"rought the exact sign in..."

Change the motion in the Contini application to read: F O"R.T.H.E SIGN, SUBJECT TO THE SIGN BEING THE WOOD ONE THAT WE SAW AND WITH COLORS AS PRESENTED."

Citizens Comments: None

Old Business:

New Day Spa,JoanHepsworthC &arolyn Carter,1287 Cherry Valley Road

Mr. Stansbury recused himselffrom this application and Mr. Myers chaired the discussion. }

Mr.Myers stated that with Mr. Stansbury recused and with two absentees,we lack a quorum and he would suggest that applicants table the application for two weeks.

Ms. Hepsworth asked a few questions:

1. In the minutes ofOctober 5 on Page 2,the siding will be T-111 wood siding,not vinyl.

2. County Engineer Jerry Turner stated that it appears applicants are splitting the property. If

we ever sold the lots,we would have to guarantee ingress and egress. Would that have to be included

in the minutes?Mr. Salvage said we are aware of that,and Mr. Myers said they are platted separately and the two parcels would not have to be merged.

3. Ms. Hepsworth asked whether the County Engineer has to approve water permits as well as the plumber. Ms. Wimberger said the Utilities Director should look at the situation.

4. The engineer asked whether the setbacks were acceptable,and Mr. Myers said that would have to be addressed by the GPC.

5. Ms. Hepsworth wants to go ahead with the T-111.

MS. HEPSWORTH ASKED THE GPC TO TABLE THE APPLICATION.

New Business:

Susan Bruns and Patricia Egan,204 Munson Street

The applicants are seeking a zoning certificate to start for change ofuse for the sign. They would like exterioraocfbeuntiledrinfogr.the arts,using existing structure and parkmg area. No changes will be made to the

Ms. Egan stated their target market is primarily homes-chooled children. They would have to change the sign to a 2'x3' or 6 sq.ft. projecting sign attached to the building by a wrought iron arm. This sign would replace existing sign,and they request a sandwich board also. Street. Parking would be in the side,and the parking lot would have to be screened from Maple

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE SIGN BEING 8 SQ.FT. OR LESS. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Public Hearing:

John Thomborough,Ronald Fenstermaker,Kathryn and Edith Dunlap, 128 North Main, 130 North Main,109 East College

Mr. Stansbury swore in en masse those citizens who felt they might wish to speak to this matter. }

The applicants are seeking rezoning for three parcels at NE corner of Main and College Streets. Mr. Thornborough stated that these three parcels are the only ones zoned residential on the streets. The house on North Main has been rented to students, but Denison has very few students living off campus now that the new residence hall has been opened. He thought an artists' studio

would be a nice addition to the village and has received positive feedback from several artists,although parking might be an issue.

Mr. Stansbury asked for citizen input,but there was none. Mr. Myers asked about use for the

other two houses, and Mr. Thornborough stated that the Dunlaps would continue living in their house and Mr. Fenstermaker would rent to students ifhe could.

Mr. Salvage would not have a problem with the rezoning but parking might be a problem,but

there is no feasible use which would meet parking requirements. There is little area available for

expansion,and these three houses are about it. Denison students,in a presentation for the Marathon

station,had found there were many parking spaces available if people were willing to walk a little bit.

He would have no problem forwarding a recommendation for rezoning to Village Council.

Mr. Myers felt this use was interesting but we have to look beyond that. In 11 zoning change

for conditional uses,we have to look for ways to narrow the focus of the rezoning, since it is a

permanent change. He thought there might be a different zoning to consider

Steve Cramer,Minister of Methodist Church asked what rights would the other two houses

have ifthis is approved,and how does this affect parking especially on Sundays.

Mr.Myers responded that technically ifwe put in fast food were to approve this,somebody could come in and be a number ofpeorrmanittyethding else. At this level we have to think beyond this application. There would uses available.

Mr. Stansburfs concerns go beyond the use issue. He is looking at the review ofcriteria,and we would be taking residences out ofthe village and turning them into businesses. This would defeat the purpose ofwhat the planned goals are,and for that reason he would recommend to Village Council that it not be approved because ofwhat could happen in the future.

Seth Patton,Denison representative asked about other alternatives for the applicants without rezoning,and Mr.Myers said he would have to rezone,since there are no variances possible. It's a change in use. He could rezone as a planned district and that would restrict it.

MR. THORNBOROUGH ASKED TO TABLE THIS REQUEST UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A UNDER NEW BUSINESS

BRUNS E&GAN)AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR.MYERS SECONDED,AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8: 15 p.m.

Next Meetings: November 23 and December 14 and 28.

GPC Minutes 10/26/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 26, 1998

Minutes

Members Present: Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent: Jack Burriss, William Wernet

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),William Hanes, Donald

Contini, John Noblick, Louise Sally and Larry Scheiderer, Roger Coombs, M. Daniels

Minutes of September 28: Page 2, Line 3, add to the north side

lot line. Under Tietz, Line 6, change "Clark" to Park.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED; MR.

SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of October 2: Page 1, third line from bottom, add

horizontally before "sliding panels. . ."

Page 2, Line 1 under Hepsworth, change "application" to work

session. Change "The applicant" to Joan Hepsworth. On last

line, change to "The existing second curbcut..."

Page 3, change "Jack" to John Thornborough. Change

paragraph to read "Mr. Thornborough wants rezoning to open an

artist studio and showroom at 138 North Main. Mr. Stansbury

stated that a work session is not rezoning..."

Citizens Comments: None 9/<, c

Old Business:

Roger L. Coombs, 218 East· Maple

The applicant stated that he would like to install a roof

over an existing concrete 12' x7' pad at the back of the house.

The pillars are to be like those on the front. Roofing materials

will be the same.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH STIPULATION

THAT THE MATERIALS BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE HOUSE.

MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Louise-M. Daniels, 125 East College Street

This application was tabled at the last meeting. Ms.

Daniels wishes to enclose the front porch with modern-looking

glass panels with horizontal dividers and storm door. The Windows.

will not match those of the house. She has provided to Ms.

Wimberger kneewall material and skirting for over the lattice

behind bushes. Frame is to be put on the outside attached at the

ends. The house across the street has an enclosed porch addition

more in keeping with style of the house.

Mr. Myers felt that the new siding should match and that· the

lattice should be of siding provided. rather than the sample material she He thought such a porch might work in the back. Mr. Salvage does not think this plastic material fits in the AROD. Mr. Stansbury said that under Section 1161 it is important that any renovations be compatible with surrounding area, and he does not think this goes with the house at all. This plan would be a disservice to the village and he does not see any way to salvage it. Mr. Wilkenfeld thought someone could come up with a better plan and provided Ms. Daniels with names. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.

MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED.

Mr. Stansbury added that whoever Ms. Daniels talked to about the plans needs to know that her application was rejected so she can get her fees back.

New Business:

Donald Contini, 431 East College Street

Mr. Contini is requesting a variance of 12" for a projecting sign for his nonconforming business. In November 1996 he received

approval for a sign, but the sign was never installed.

The timeframe has expired, so this is a new application. He

brought the sign in for GPC to look at, saying it is a name and

address ratiler than an advertising sign.

Ms. Wimberger stated that the bracket for the sign already

exists and originates from the wall of the building and could

therefore be considered a wall sign. A nonconforming use can only

have a wall sign. Since there was a sign there before and since

it is not in the middle of a residential area, it should be

allowable.

Mr. Stansbury stated that ordinarily we have to go through a

variance process, but the ordinance says that we can approve it

without a variance if we wish. Since we like the sign, it should

be approved. 146- h r

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR THE S IGNAE#9 -C· 44

PRESENTED TO THE GPC TONIGHT. GPC IS CONTROLLING AUTHORITY'««) , 1189. 05( A) (2).MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS U.-or:*b

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 16'-0 .t>

William Hanes, 560 West Broadway

Mr. Hanes stated that he wants to build an addition which

would entail replace a 445 sq. ft. addition with a new addition

and a porch. He will match existing materials. Although this

falls within the TCOD 100' setback, the existing structure is

already within the setback and will not protrude farther than

existing portion of the house; most of the construction will be

in the side and rear yards.

Mr. Stansbury feels that in the TCOD as long as uniformity

2

3

is consistent, he sees no problem.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dr. and Mrs. Lee Davis, 304 North Pearl Street

John Noblick, builder, to do explained that the applicant wishes off thea restoration and replace siding with redwood siding, take green natural roof and replace it with new real slate and gcaorpapgeer,, tear down a modern carport and add breezeway and twoc-ar build new stone chimney, replace existing side porch, and add new shutters and picket fence (within the ROW). They will

apply to BZBA for setback variances on the side.

Mr. Salvage does not object to putting a fence along the ROW, but really wants to see drawings. Maybe we can omit the fence from our approval now but sees no reason why they cannot get started on the house. Mr. Myers added tat the location of the fence in relation to sidewalk needs clarification.

Mr. Noblick will get a drawing to Ms. Wimberger of the fence before the next meeting. His surveyor is working on a survey, and Mthse. RWOiWm.berger will research legal aspects of putting a fencein

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION PROVIDED THAT THE

1) SETBACKS AS SHOWN ON DRAWING ARE APPROVED BY BZBA AND

2) FENCE PLAN WILL HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED TO US FOR FINAL

APPROVAL AT A LATER DATE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A UNDER OLD

BUSINESS (COOMBS) AND A,B, AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS

CONTINI, HANES, DAVIS) AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9: 00 p. m.

Next Meetings: November 9 and 23

GPC Minutes 10/5/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 5, 1998

M.inut.ex

MWeimllibaemrs Present: Jack Burriss, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Wernet, Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent: Keith Myers

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon S( entinel)K, atherine Wirtz, Tony and Luann Barsotti, Joan Hepsworth, Carolyn Carter, Ken and Penny Richards, Trudy Knox, John Thornborough, Jim Harf

Minutes of September 14, again: Page 1, Shumway application, Ms. mWoimvebde. rger stated that three shrubs were removed, rather than

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Minutes of September 28 are not prepared yet.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

Luann and Anthony Barsotti, Jr.,344 East Maple Street

The applicant stated that two years ago he came in for a permit for vinyl siding but could not do it then; now he wants gray and white siding with slight texture to match existing siding. All other things remain the same. He would keep the fishscale siding.

Mr. Burriss asked about the porch pillars and was told they would be wrapped in aluminum and the capitals would go. The half columns against the house would be boxed also. Mr. Burriss

thought the columns complemented the fishscale and would hate to

see them go or to be boxed. It' s important to maintain the origi- nal integrity of the facade. Mr. Barsotti is willing to change

the design. There would be a gable vent in a diamond shape on both ends of house.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH AMENDMENTS:

1) COLUMNS OF PORCH NOT BE ENCLOSED; (2) TRIANGULAR VENT BE

COVERED IN APPROPRIATE SIDING MATERIAL; (3) FURTHER ADDITION

TO THE PROPOSAL, WE PROVIDE FOR ALLOWING A MEMBRANE ROOF,

BLACK IN COLOR, BE APPLIED TO THE ROOF OF THE PORCH. MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Louise M. Daniels, 125 East College Street

Ms. Daniels would like to enclose the front porch with glass

and aluminum. The existing posts may or may not remain, depending

on their internal stability. The porch would have horizontal

sliding panels with screens covering half the window.

Mr. Stansbury asked whether the kneewall would remain and

she replied yes and it would be lower. There is a space between

the railing and the floor. Mr. Burris large picture window was concerned about the addition is balancing with the new porch windows. The to work more modern than the house but could be articulated their coanndditihoen.would like the pillars intact, but that depends on

Mr. Wernet was concerned about the lack of horizontal breaks Bonurtrhisesnew windows, which would enhance the appearance, and Mr. said other windows are doubleh-ung, and he would feel more comfortable witn the new windows broken up in some way. Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested horizontal siding. Mr. Salvage would like to see a sample of material, and Mr. Burriss wants the roof not to change and wants the shrubs to remain. He is not

comfortable with the modern appearance. Members wanted to see drawings further describing this plan and how it would fit in with the rest of the house. Ms. Wimberger will work with Ms. Daniels to come up with revised plans after the latter talks with her builder.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PENDING RECEIPT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James Crates and Stephanie Gussler, 339 East Maple Street

The applicants wish to raise the roof over the rear of the house to utilize space above the kitchen and make less expanse of roof. It will be of barn siding and have one double-paned window. On the back they would have another window. The front

facade will be equal with the wall to the west.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Roger L. Coombs, 218 East Maple Street

Since the applicant was absent and members had questions:

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION; MR. BURRISS

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session

Joan Hepsworth, 1287 Cherry Valley Road

Mr. Stansbury recused himself from this work session}

Joan Hepsworth and Carolyn Carter wish to open a Massage

Therapy business, entitled New Day Spa. They need to add parking

space behind the building and would remove the garage door and

make outside facade look the same as the wall. The finish would

be painted with a texture to hide the cement block with vinyl

siding on the back. The front door would be flush. They would

remove trees and add shrubs. The existing second curbcut will be

for residences on either side.

2

Mr. Burriss asked applicants about sign location and lighting, and the want it as close to the road as possible. Ms. Htheepsirworth will approach Cherrry Valley Lodge about access to parking lot. Members would like to see photos. Mr.

Burriss wants to see the parking lot screened, and Ms. Hepsworth will screen it on the residential side.

Consensus liked the plan. The ditch might present a problem. Sidewalks need to be 6- wide but there is not enough space at this point. If Cherry Valley road is improved, the sidewalks would need to be installed by the owner. If there is btoe bceonannecatecdc.ess road in the back, this parking lot would need to

Members asked for information about the sign, its location, proposed screening to the north of parking lot, and photos.

Mr. Wernet appreciates the fact that applicants have looked watorkth. e ordinances and tried to come up with something that will

John Thornborough, SE Corner of Main and College Streets

Mr. Thornborough stated that he wants rezoning to open an artist studio and showroom at 138 North Main. Mr. Stansbury

stated that a work session is not appropriate for a rezoning and that a public hearing should be scheduled.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A AND B UNDER NEW

BUSINESS (CRATES, BARSOTTI) AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9: 15 p. m.

Next Meetings: October 26 and November 9 and 23

GPC Minutes 9/28/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 28, 1998

Mintltna

WMeimllibaemrs Present: Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Wernet, Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent: Jack Burriss

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon S( entinel)J,ed and Jill LeVere, Park Shai, Ed Vance, Mr. and Mrs. John Denune, Ken and Mindy Tietz, Bob and Ruth Lisle, Ken and Katie Richards

Minutes of September 14: Page 1, Mr. Myers recused himself from the Hersam application.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: Ken Richards reinforced his earlier comments about the HersamK/obunski development on West Broadway. He

thanked the GPC members for their awareness that there are other issues going on other than just rezoning.

1) One of his major concerns is consistency in application of policies. When he wanted to subdivide his land on West

Broadway, it was explained that the nature of the TCOD is to preserve greenspace. He was required to meet all requirements,

including the 100' setback, and was told no variances would be granted. He stressed the need for treating everyone fairly and equally and reminded the group that some lots are unbuildable.

2) When condominiums were proposed for the lot, the

neighbors were opposed because of the extra traffic with one curbcut and four units. They were also concerned about the risk

of having dumpsters left at roadside for too long and about whether emergency vehicles could use the road. Much earlier in

time, Mr. Hersam had said there was a way to build houses under existing regulations. What happened to that idea?

3) Mrs. Richards added that if they are going to widen the

road, they will need to take out even more trees and will wipe out the whole hill.

New Business:

James and Jill LeVere, 216 N. Granger Street

The applicant stated that he would like to remove the

existing garage and put a three-car garage on the back and add a

master bedroom above the garage. They will install new asphalt

and add a deck with french doors between the house and garage off

the kitchen extension. They have a lot of noise and traffic and

wish to move the bedroom away from the traffic. He will put a

shed roof above the concrete slab, just a roof and will match

shingles and windows and stone on chimney. The drive will extend

farther down the lot line, and the turning radius is tight but

do-able. He wants to move two garage doors with windows to the

back of the house.

9

Ms. Wimberger said that a variance is needed for extension

of the driveto the north side of lot line.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED,

INCLUDING THE RIGHT FOR APPLICANT TO MOVE GARAGE DOORS TO

THE EAST END IF HE WISHES, AND INCLUDE A SHED ROOF ABOVE THE

PORCH. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Mindy Tietz, 80 Westgate Drive

Mr. Tietz stated that they are seeking a zoning certificate

for a day-care center. They have received approval from BZBA for

variance for front parking, and Village Council approved day-care

as a conditional use. The building will have no exterior changes

and they can widen the driveway if necessary for two cars to pass

each other; Park Shai thought the drive was currently wide

enough. The owner will repair the driveway. They desire a

chainlink fence in front yard, but this is not permitted in the

code. No signs are requested at this time. They will move the

dumpster from where it is on the plan and it will be at the road

with a 6- enclosure. Mr. Wernet suggested putting it north of

the current location. Mr. Tietz would prefer using 2 screened

trash cans located west of the building, between this building

and the Newark Leader.

Widening the driveway would be quite costly and not really

necessary, but BZBA passed the variance with stipulation that the

driveway be widened. Ingress and egress will be staggered so that

traffic will be less than at a business or office with regular

hours.

Mr. Wernet thought this could be approved contingent upon

staff approval of driveway width.

If the fence is flush with front of building or extends

beyond, it cannot be chainlink. Mr. Tietz will need a 48" wooden

fence, natural or trellis, sealed with paint.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH FOLLOWING

CONDITIONS: (1) ASPHALT DRIVEWAY TO BE MINIMUM OF 16' WIDE;

2) ANY FENCE EXTENDING EVEN WITH OR IN FRONT OF BUILDING BE

WOOD STOCKADE; (3) APPROPRIATE SCREENING BE PUT AROUND

DUMPSTER OR TRASH STORAGE LOCATION. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Keith and Patricia Myers, 229 East College Street

Mr. Myers recused himself and acted as applicant.}

The applicant wants to take down the chainlink and existing

rotting pickets and add a new picket fence and a hemlock hedge.

He also wants to add a basketball area.

John Denune, a neighbor, stated that people come through the

10' ROW at the rear of Lots 10 and 11 on Broadway and park there

without authorization, and he wanted it noted that he wanted to

3

breeplsaucreed the fence that went along the north side of the ROW be for the protection of children. Mr. Myers has no problem with this. Ed Vance, another neighbor, seconded this concern. Mr. Wernet stated that if there are people using the area without authorization, get in touch with someone.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A,B,AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS L(EVERE, TIETZ, MYERS) AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9: 15 p. m.

Next Meetings: October 5 and October 26

GPC Minutes 9/14/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 14, 1998

Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent: Bill Wernet

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),Dave Shumway, Bob

Erhard, Bob Herson, Robert Engle

Minutes of August 10: Page 1, halfway down page, change "32 to

36".

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None.

Old Business:

Dave Shumway, 204 North Granger Street

The applicant received approval for a solid fence to the

northwest portion of the lot at last meeting. The fence has not

been installed per GPC approval, and he must receive approval for

the revised application. Staff has received several calls from

citizens unhappy about the appearance of the fence, although it

would have been better to receive complaints beforehand. Ms.

Wimberger had told Mr. Shumway he would not be in compliance, but

he proceeded since he had the post-hole digger on hand.

Mr. Shumway said he moved the fence over 16' to put it in better

balance with the house. He ineved. three shrubs and placed the

fence back 3' from original application.

AeL-«4

Mr. Burriss thought the fence should be stained a light

color, and he would be willing to approve the amended fence with

the condition that it be light because a light color would lessen .

the impact of the solid fence. GPC members agreed there should

be a time limit for painting the fence, and they concurred on the

date of Memorial Day, at noon.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE AMENDED FENCE APPLICATION WITH

THE CONDITION THAT A LIGHT OPAQUE STAIN BE APPLIED TO BOTH

SIDES BY MEMORIAL DAY, 1999, AND SUCH COLOR TO BE APPROVED

BY STAFF. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY

MAJORITE WITH ONE NAY VOTE (MYERS).

Bob Hersam, Thornewood Subdivision lots 27, 28,29, West Broadway

Mr. Erhard described the newly revised plans for three

houses on the three lots, throwing out the plans for cluster

housing because citizens objected strongly. The house on Lot 27

is behind the 100' TCOD minimum, but 28 and 29 are not. Other

4. .:

houses in the area are less than driveway 100' back. There would be one for the three lots, and it would be widened toward the street to accommodate passing cars. Mr. Hersam added that the houses cannot be moved back farther because of the trees.

Mr. Salvage noted that "maximum" side setbacks in the ordinances should instead be listed as minimum. He said that

with 100' setbacks, it would be impossible to build on the lots. As planned, these houses would hardly show from the street.

Mr. Wilkenfeld requested that Ms. Wimberger bring to the next meeting the minutes of the meeting where citizens spoke out against the project. The house on Lot 31 was approved at 90' setback, to save some trees, and he feels that sets precedent for the others.

Mr. Erhard said that the purpose of the TCOD was to plan

minimal curbcuts, and the particular circumstances with the hill in the rear and the TCOD in the front necessitate a variance in

order to put the houses in the best location.

Mr. Burriss reviewed the GPC' s preference for cluster hous- ing with driveways in the rear, but some vocal people had made

the statement that the 100' setback was more important than the

number of curbcuts and preferred single-family homes, maintaining

the 100' minimum. A single driveway limits flexibility. He asked about the island, and Mr. Hersam said it protects the tree. Mr.

Burriss reminded the group that a big tree needs a lot of space around it. Mr. Burriss thought the house sites could be repositioned

to move the houses farther back. The road is still private,

but if we make it an exit and entrance, there are certain

requirements. Mr. Erhard would be willing to return for another

work session.

Although Mr. Stansbury agrees with Mr. Wilkenfeld to some

degree, he thinks that the 70' setback is not unreasonable partly

because of the Winter house setback. He would prefer to see a

straight driveway and single curbcut with parking in the rear

rather than in and out driveways.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AS PRESENTED

SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH HOME SITE AND LANDSCAPING

PLANS BY THE TREE AND LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE AT A LATER TIME

AND SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE ENTRANCE AND OTHER ENGINEERING

DETAILS BY THE VILLAGE ENGINEER.

THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

Mr. Wilkenfeld asked to see the minutes of the citizens'

comments and Mr. Burriss agreed. '

Mr. Hersam requests tabling the application until the

1

2

October 5 meeting. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE THIS TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 5 AND IT SHOULD BE THE FIRST ITEM UNDER OLD BUSINESS.

MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. and Mrs. Leslie Bendorf, 233 West Elm Street

The applicants wish to provide back yard landscaping and integral fence. GPC wished they an had a legal description and a drawing showing relationship to neighboring properties.

Mr. Robert Engle described the project, saying the fence

would be honey almond color. They did not want a solid wall but

chose variety. Most of the fence will not be visible to the

street. Mr. Myers thought the different panels idea was most

unusual.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A UNDER NEW

BUSINESS (SHUMWAY) AND A (BENDORF) UNDER OLD BUSINESS AS

FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND

FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9: 10 p. m.

Next Meetings: September 28 and October 5

GPC Minutes 8/24/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 24, 1998

Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Keith Myers, Richard Salvage,

Gary Stansbury, Bill Wernet, Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent-

Also Present: Kathryn wimoerger, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel), Jeff Oster, Dave

Shumway, Carolyn Carter, Joan Nysmith, Rob and Debbie McPeek, Bob Gerano

Minutes of August 10:

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR.

MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None.

New Business:

Dave Shumway, 204 North Granger Street

Mr. Shumway described the plans for a solid wooden fence

with two gates in the north and west edges of the property. The

fence on the north side is on the neighbor' s property line, and

neighbor is not opposed to the fence. For better visibility, the

portion of fence extending from the edge to the sidewalk will be

42" and the rest, 4' high.

Mr. Shumway said there are ornamental shrubs along the 0

sidewalk and the fence would be before them, but, SEC members 6 would like to see the fence moved back at least 1(3,P: from the

sidewalk in order to prevent a formidable wall for children

passing by and soften the look of the fence and make it easier to

care for the strip than 12" would. A picket or iron fence would

present less of a barrier feeling, but Mr. Shumway has already

purchased the solid fence. The issue of appearance would fall

under our purview as part of the general welfare provisions.

Consensus of the members was to move the fence either 3'

back or place it behind the existing shrubs. With a different

style fence, however, it could be 1' from the sidewalk.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE

CONDITION THAT THE FENCE PORTION ALONG GRANGER STREET BE SET

BACK 3' FROM THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,

AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Rodney and Deborah McPeek, 133 South Prospect Street

The McPeeks wish to widen the existing driveway to provide

more parking area on funeral occasions and to better line up the

drive. Mrs. McPeek explained that in their ignorance they went

ahead and completed the job without proper permissions, but after

a lengthy wait the asphalt company showed up and the applicants

were not willing to postpone the project any longer. It will be

necessary to acquire a setback variance.

MR.

MR.

WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED.

SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jeffery A. Oster, 1159 Cherry Valley Road

Mr. Oster wishes to convert the house into a shoe store in

accordance with regulations of the PUD. He studied the

suggestions provided at the work session and incorporated them

into his application. He will trim the trees in order to make

the sign more visible, and planned the gravel parking area in the

rear.

Mr. Wilkenfeld was very much concerned about how the

ingress/egress would fit in with future development in the area.

The applicant of course cannot know what will happen in the

future and cannot build a service road and is unwilling to leave

himself open to a commitment to build one. Any new tenant would

have to work with and around this parking lot. However, the

applicant might have to agree to provide access through his lot

for interconnecting parking lots.

Mr. Wernet stated that the issue of planning the Cherry

Valley area for interconnections in the rear is something that

could be recommended to Village Council in their consideration of

the new Master Plan currently underway. Ms. Wimberger will get

to us information about possible recommendations to V.C.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITION

THAT THE APPLICANT PARTICIPATE IN A JOINT ACCESS AT SOME

TIME IN THE FUTURE WHEN CHERRY VALLEY IS REDONE. MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

George Williamson

The applicant wishes to add a second-story bay window above

the existing window and will match existing window in style and

size. There will be two skylights. Mr. Gerano explained the

design for the new window, and members had no objections to

application.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED; MR.

BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Jill Lamneck, 130 South Mulberry Street

Mr. Wernet excused himself from consideration of this

application and answered questions on behalf of Ms. Lamneck, who

was absent.}The applicant wishes to replace chainlink with new

white picket fence on the north side, 4' in from the sidewalk,

running west to east for 150' and ending at northeast property

2

line. There will be of the property. no fencing running north to south in front

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

William and Lois Wernet, 134 South Mulberry Street

Mr. Wernet excused himself from consideration of this application and acted as applicant.}Mr. Wernet explained that

the Lamnecks and applicants wish to jointly install a white picket fence between the lots. It will extend on the north side for 120'.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A,B,C, AND D

UNDER NEW BUSINESS (SHUMWAY,MCPEEK,OSTER,WILLIAMSON) AND A

WERNET) AND THE ADDED B UNDER OLD BUSINESS (LAMNECK) AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND

FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8: 45 p.m.

Next Meetings: September 14 and September 28

GPC Minutes 8/10/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 10, 1998

Minutes

Members Present: Bill Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Wernet, Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent: Jack Burriss

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner and Matt Trumbull, Planning Intern

VShisomitoakresr,Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel)D,ave Wakeman, Cecelia Jeff and Thalia Oster

Minutes of July 27: Page 1, Mr. Salvage seconded the motion for Cecelia Shomaker. Page 3, Mr. Salvage moved to adopt Finding of Fact.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Stansbury introduced our new Village Planner, Kathryn Wimberger and promised her some interesting times. We are

pleased to have her.

Citizens Comments: None.

New Business:

Denison University, Monomoy House, 204 West Broadway

Dave Wakeman explained the plans for new wooden fence with two gates in the northwest section of the property. There will be a garden shed for tools, as there is no garage. He described

plans for landscaping and said the 6' high gate will be locked. MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED; MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Village Brewing Company, 128 East Broadway

Gerald Martin wishes to add a 2. 7 sq. ft. vinyl sign for the door next to the restaurant, leading to the upstairs area, saying

Brews Too" and otherwise identical to the sign in place at the restaurant.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED.

MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Cecilia Shomaker, 115 West Broadway -Sign

The applicant wishes to have a 7. 14 sq. ft. sign for her

Jazzercize classes, similar to a real estate sign, so people can locate the classes.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR THE SIGN

SUBJECT TO ITS BEING TEMPORARY AND PUT UP WITHIN HALF AN

HOUR BEFORE EACH SESSION AND TAKEN DOWN WITHIN A HALF HOUR

AFTERWARDS. MR. WILKENFELD UNANIMOUSLY SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED.

David and Jill Lamneck, 130 Sduth Mulberry William and Lois Wernet, 134 South Mulberry

Mr. Wernet excused himself from consideration of this application and acted as applicant.}Mr. Wernet explained that the next-door neighbors wish to jointly install a white picket yfeenacres between the lots similar to what may have been in place 100 ago. An old chain-link fence will be removed.

Mr. Stansbury stated that this is not a very complete drawing, and Mr. Wernet agreed and promised to provide a better aonned stoetbsaccakle. , with photographs and with exact location of fence

MYERS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PENDING RECEIPT OF DESCRIPTIVE DRAWINGS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED AND MOTION

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Paramount Financial Group, South Galway Drive -Finding of Fact

A Finding of Fact for the decision for the Paramount Com- panies at the June 22 meeting was updated from the last meeting, at which time members approved the document. Everyone agreed

that this version was acceptable, and everyone signed it.

Work Session:

Jeff Oster, 1159 Cherry Valley

Mr. Oster explained that he wishes to change the dwelling

from a residence to a shoe store and described how the building would be adapted and adhere to handicapped regulations. The

business would be low-volume with one employee. They would like

to keep the large pine trees. The side setback is 11. 6' instead

of the 15' minimum, but Ms. Wimberger said this would be allowed

because the house is already existing, but he would have to get a variance for anything he added onto the building not meeting the 15' setback.

Members had not received copies of the PCD regulations and

were not familiar with them but during the meeting Mr. Trumbull

provided them.

Mr. Wilkenfeld was particularly concerned with traffic flow

and curb cuts and what will happen when other businesses open on

this strip of road. A bigger picture is needed and maybe the

approach is to think long term and act short term. Mr. Salvage

thought there should be a way to encourage co-developers or a

single owner on these neighboring properties. Mr. Myers thought

consistency in planning for parking lots would be important.

Keeping parking in the rear would maintain a certain character of

2

3

tthraenrseitsioidneanltial area. There are still people living there in that area. Mr. Wilkenfeld thought maybe the Village could be proactive in its forward thinking for the area.

setbaMckr.. Stansbury thought there was a deed restriction of a 100' deed restrMicrt.ioMny.ers did not think we could give a variance in a Mr. Salvage said there are ways to change a dtheeemd oren.striction, but it goes back to the original person putting

Parking. There will be 5 parking spaces in the rear.

Signs. Mr. Oster said the sign is a pole sign, externally lit, not designed yet, located 10' into the ROW. GPC is

generally opposed to signs in the ROW, but Mr. Oster said if they pliuktesit back farther, it would be deep within the pine trees. GPC monument signs.

Landscaping. Parking lot needs to be screened from adjacent neighbors.

Driveway. In PCD parking for 5 spaces could be gravel:

Lot Coverage. Below maximum.

Lighting. They might need a floodlight for safety.

Sidewalks. Applicant should plan to put in 6' sidewalks

when neighboring properties are developed.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A AND B UNDER NEW

BUSINESS (MONOMOY AND BREWS) AND A UNDER OLD BUSINESS

SHOMAKER) AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD

SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9: 00 p. m.

Next Meetings: August 24 and September 14

GPC Minutes 7/27/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 27, 1998

Minutes

MSetamnbsebrsurPy,reCseanrlt:WiJlkaecknfBeludrriss, Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Gary

Members Absent: Bill Wernet

APllsaonnPerrsesent: Matt Trumbull and Lindsay 0' Leary, Acting Village

VJoihsnitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel)T,odd Feil, Greg Ream, Oney, Margaret Clayton

Minutes of June 22: Add Gary Stansbury to Members Present list. Page 3: Line 8, add board building after "school." About halfway down on Page 3, "lig.h.ti.ng should be unobtrusive, such as low ground lighting for safety purposes." contrPuagcete3d, .c"hange No. 2 to end "trash can areainside fences to be

Page 3, No. 7, change to "Reestablish sidewalk with tree lawn on Granger;..."

Page 4, No. 1, change "west" to east.

No. 5, add (Staff to verify on final plans.)

Delete No. 9, but add this item after the motion.

Page 5, change "especial" to special

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Minutes of July 16:

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None.

New Business:

Todd Feil, 229 Cherry Street

The Feils wish to install two 54"x20" skylights to the north side (rear) of the house, which will not be visible to the street. MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED; MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Cecilia Shomaker, 115 West Broadway -Sign

The applicant was absent, but Mr. Trumbull explained that

since the sign is informational, she would only have it up while

Jazzercise classes are going on. Applicant provided no drawing,

and members want this as a temporary sign only.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO CONTINUE APPLICATION UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING

BECAUSE IT IS THE BELIEF OF THE GPC THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD

BE PRESENT. MR. STANSBORY SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED. 44«/

Old Business:

Paramount Financial Group, South Galway Drive -Finding of Fact

A Finding of Fact for the decision for the Paramount Companies

at the June changes. 22 meeting was provided, and members had several meeting. The document will be retyped and distributed at the next

No. 9 is not part of the motion, and there was debate whether V. C. needs to approve the infrastructure issues. Mr. Hickman said athbeouVt illage Engineer will need o,#approve them, but he is concerned the curbcut. Members felt they should have input from Mr. Wernet before addressing this issue. Consensus agreed to remove No. 9 from the motion, although Mr. Wilkenfeld is still uncomfortable. dAelsleot,er e"move the first sentence of second paragraph on Page 2 and as well" also.

No. 1, "Applicant will provide connections on the plan from the proposed parking lot to future cross easement from Fackler' s development to Cherry Valley on the east side as required by the code to bring it into compliance with the SBD requirement for parking lots. and eliminate the easternmost curbcut on his property."

No. 2 {We ought to consider changing the code to allow shorter hedges to be planted and allowed to grow to 42"}

No. 3, add "If required by Village Council."

No. 5, "The building' s footprint will be expanded just enough to meet the ordinances for parking requirements with spaces as indicated on the plan."

No. 6, add Village Engineer...."

No. 8, add Full screening of parking lot as per code."

No. 9, delete.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT AS

MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY

MR. MYERS ABSTAINED.

AMENDED.

MAJORITY.

Work Session:

Fred Abraham, 460 South Main Street

In Mr. Abraham' s absence, John Oney described the preliminary

plans for changing the 37, 000 sq. ft metal warehouse building into

retail space. Doug Plunkett is researching the code issues, and a

survey is being made. He will totally renovate the building on all

sides with synthetic stone with canopy and vinyl on all four sides.

Two zoning districts are involved: CSD and SBD, and the

building rests below flood plain. Knuckleheads would have to be

relocated to allow flow of traffic around it. There are two

buildings on one property.

Joe Hickman said that either it could be rezoned or BZBA could

interpret the zoning boundaries. Mr. Myers thought that this might

2

1

be disatrlioctt to leave up to BZBA and recommended rezoning to one give or the other. It is important to have the Law Director relevaanwt.ritten opinion on the subject. The TCOD would not be All signage must strictly adhere to the code.

Greg Ream is involved in the larger parcel and is concerned about rezoning. He feels he would need more than 4, 000 sq. ft. He

wants to be assured that signage is adequate for a building so far mbaakcek, thaendbMusri.neMsysers said that any good architectural feature will stand out.

Mr. Wilkenfeld thought the applicant had an excellent opportunity to raise the value of Granville property by improving the gateway to the village.

Kudos: Mr. Stansbury thanked our two acting Village Planners and said they have been a very good help to us. Kathryn Weinberger is coming to us from Wisconsin and will start at the next meeting.

Finding of Fact:

MR. MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A UNDER NEW

BUSINESS (FEIL) AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD

SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9: 30 p.m.

Next Meetings: August 10 AND 24

GPC Minutes 7/16/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 16, 1998

Minutes

MWeimlkbeenrsfePldresent: Jack Burriss, Gary Stansry, Bill Wernet, Carl

Members Absent: Keith Myers, Richard Salvage AVlissoitoPrrsesent: Matt Trumbull, Acting Village Planner Present: Scott and Margaret Hickey, Richard Downs

Minutes of June 22: Consideration of minutes was postponed until next meeting.

Citizens Comments: None.

New Business:

Scott and Marjorie Hickey, 211 South Main Street

The Hickeys wish to enlarge the kitchen, which will extend 21' from the house. They also wish to construct a 550 sq.ft. carriage houseo/ffice and two-car garage in the SW corner of the lot. It

will be situated at a 4' setback from south property line and 0' setback from west property line, and BZBA will consider a variance on Thursdaj. The TCOD does not apply here, and lot coverage is under 50 Ddr· cent. Massing is not an issue. Mr. Hickey stated that a piece of: the lot was sold to a neighbor and he thinks the original tax map was in error. Lindsay O' Leary had said that as long as Mr: Hickey explained to the neighbors what he found, they would take him at his word.

Richard Downs explained the foundations would be split face block. The siding is to be board and batten on the south and north and lap cedar siding, vertical or horizontal, on the front and back, no vinyl or aluminum. Asbestos siding to be removed. Mr. Burris thanked applicants for a complete set of drawings but wished he dould have seen elevations of the existing structure. He wanted applicants to give thought to whether they really wanted to mix vertical and horizontal siding.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) APPLICANTS TO CHOOSE BOARD AND BATTEN OR

CLAPBOARD SIDING AT A LATER TIME AT THEIR DISCRETION BECAUSE

THEY DO NOT KNOW NOW WHAT IS UNDER THE ASBESTOS; EAST AND WEST SIDING TO BE THE SAME AND NORTH AND SOUTH SIDING TO BE THE

SAME. (2) APPLICANTS MAY REMOVE PRESENT ASBESTOS SIDING; 3( ) PENDING APPROVAL OF BZBA ON SETBACK VARIANCES. MR. BURRISS

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UMANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A UNDER NEW

BUSINESS (HICKEY) AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD

SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Adj ournment: 8: 15 p.m.

Next Meetings: July 27 (Betty may be absent) and August 10

GPC Minutes 6/22/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 22, 1998

Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Richard Wilkenfeldlid ,/- Salvage, Bill Wernet, Carl

Members Absent: Keith Myers

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden (Sentinel)B, ernie Lukco, Sally Hannahs, Steve Miller, Bill Acklin, Joyce Munro, Lindsay O' Leary, Matt McGowan, Bob Kent, Dave Bussan, Bob Erhard, Rochelle and Jules Steinberg, Jim Harf, Mark Nicholas, Bill Prenosil, Garry McAnally, Maxine Montgomery, Dan Bellman, Phil Wince

Minutes of June 8: Page 1, Paragraph starting with Mr. Darfus, tchheange to "Mr. Darfus said they cleaned up the place and removed neon

Page 3, under Traffic Impact. Change first word to The. At end of paragraph add, "We decided we had adequate information to make a decision on the site plan, and this question is beyond the scope of this body."

Page 4, first line change to "Memo of Understanding is not needed."Last line change to "They will consider limiting access to workdays only."

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR.

BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None. Mr. Reyazi stated that the sign on the

telephone at the new bookstore was put up by a private company, and he has left messages regarding the phone. We will remove it if

they don' t call back. Also, Callender' s has a big sign that is on Mr. Reyazi' s list.

Old Business:

Dan and Fran Bellman, 320 North Pearl

The Bellmans wish to remove existing crank-out windows at the east side and replace with 6' French doors. Mr. Bellman said this

would look better and bring in more light. Sometime later the

applicant will deal with side windows of a similar size and look.

It is not a true French door, but it is close.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.

SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UMANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

First Presbyterian Church, 110 West Broadway

Mr. Burriss recused himself because of his involvement with

this applicant}

The applicant has obtained all necessary approvals for Phase I

from Village Council and BZBA following GPC approval several months

ago. Tonight they seek final approval of site plan and elevations.

The engineeer has submitted a letter of suggestions, and there are

some outstanding issues to be settled before the engineer gives

final approval. Two issues, according to Mr. Miller, are outstanding,

Item 2 and Item 14, neither of which is insurmountable {see

4'r--

letter of June 19 from Mr. Reyazi Jobes Henderson to Reza Reyazi}. reminded the group that final approval is required from Tree and Landscape Committee. Applicant was to relocate a tree and also screen the parking lot on Main Street. Drawing No. SU-1 is not correct insofar as the jog on the east is concerned.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. APPLICANT REQUIRED TO SATISFY ALL CONCERN OF VILLAGE ENGINEER AS OUTLINED IN HIS LETTER OF JUNE 19

2. IF NO. 1 REQUIRES SITE PLAN CHANGES, APPLICANT IS TO COME BACK TO THIS GROUP

3. LANDSCAPE PLAN IS TO BE APPROVED BY TREE AND LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE

4. FOOTPRINT OF THE PLAN TO BE AS SHOWN ON NO. 4 OF THE PLAN RATHER THAN SU-1

MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Exempted Village School District, 130 N. Granger St.

Bernard Lukco thought Mr. Salvage should be recused from consideration because he represents the School Board.

But Mr. Salvage stated that the Village allows a member

to be appointed to this body and he would be wrong to

excuse himself when the school has an issue before it.

Mr. Reyazi stated that when this issue was raised

before, the Law Director, after being consulted, said

Mr. Salvage was not required to recuse himself.}

Mr. Harf stated that in response to concerns from the last

meeting, the School Board has revisited the plan and has requested new ideas from the architects. They talked about limiting access

to daytime use. There may be a sign saying, "Restricted to people

using the building,"or put up a chain after work hours. Cost is a

primary factor, so a keycard system is prohibitive. The School

Board has only approved Scheme C.

In addition to other Scheme Drawings, Bill Prenisol showed new

drawing Scheme D to the group as a suggestion to incorporate concerns

from the last meeting, i. e.,to plan more buffer areas. This

would be more costly and require two storm drains and more asphalt.

There will be no diagonal parking on Granger Street. Mr. Reyazi

stated that Scheme E would not go past the west face of the building,

but Scheme C would do so. Scheme C has no west buffer and no

setback but more space to the east.

Mr. Burriss suggested a Scheme D-1 with parking flipped to the

other side of the parking lot so headlights would face empty lots.

Mr. Prenisol thought this could be done.

Mr. Lukco said the neighbors prefer Scheme E and strongly

object to the plan (D) with 13 slots in a straight line. Ms.

Steinberg said the group compromised on Scheme C, but they want to

know the future use of the empty space.

Bob Erhard presented ideas for Robin Bartlett and Marci

McCauley, who could not be present tonight. They would find Scheme

2

tCheornDeigahcbcoerpstable with the right screening, but would go along with on Scheme E. They want a fence or wall. Maybe a wooden or brick wall could be erected and wrapped around the sccorreneenri,nganwd otuhledy might be willing to share in the cost. Too much cut off the light source. Mr. Wlkenfeld reminded the group of the fencing at the Lutheran Church, which effectively ameliorates noise and head- lights; this might work at the scho.];to protect residents. Also, 64 he is concerned about the dumpster ln the lot. esurctyh afrofmenctheesshcohuoldolb. eMorn. Hthaerfpprorepfeerrtryedline so asMrn.oSt atlovagtaekethporoup ght*, 6 and landscaping rather than an appearance of openness a costly fence. Mr. Werner cautioned

that a too high fence would eliminate light, but there needs to be a buffer. Mr. Burriss thought a fence behind the school, headed eeaffsetcttoives.outheast, landscaped and curved toward the north would be Mr. Prenisol did not think that was unreasonable, and Mr. Lukco said that would be agreeable with the neighbors.

Whether a dumpster is really necessary for so few employees

was discussed, and consensus thought a couple of carts or cans behind the building would be adequate.

Mr. Burris summed up the discussion: Scheme E is the preferred plan with 9' x20' spaces. Plan a combination fence/landscaping screen with wall headed east and north on southeast corner of the lot. There needs to be deciduous and evergreen landscaping on both sides of the fence. Mr. Harf would support that if cost is not 3 #0 prohibitive. Reestablish tree lawn, and plant evergreen hedge along Granger Street. One light fixture will be above the door,

asnigdnawnyilol thseary, lighting should be unobtrusiveA Mr. Harf added that F . Violators will be towed, "addia pair of posts in- stalled for holding a chain which could be put up at night. This

can be done under GPC provisions for safety and general welfare. A

Eliminate dumpster and use cans or carts.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION UNDER SCHEME E, SUBJECT TO FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. REDUCE SLOTS TO 9' WIDE

2. NO DUMPSTER PAD, BUT ADD SCREENED, ASPHALTED TRASH CAN AREA tL likel/119/ r-EmjUiSfrfaRG

4.2.,--

3. PLACE SCREENING FROM NE CORNER OF BUILDING EASTWARD AND U61- CURVED TO NORTH AND PLACE 6' HIGH FENCE TO MINIMIZE LIGHT

PROBLEM WITH NEIGHBORS AS PART OF LANDSCAPING PLAN

4. LANDSCAPING PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED TO GPC FOR FINAL APPROVAL

5. SIGNS TO SAY "PARKING LOT IS ONLY FOR OFFICIALS OF THE

BUILDING AND VIOLATORS WILL BE TOWED."

6. HIDE TWO POSTS IN LANDSCAPING TO HLD POSSIBLE CHAIN AT

ENIRANCE,

*

114-4/3'(

7. REPLACE SID* WALK WITH TREE LAWN; VILLAGE TO ADD TREES

8. LIGHTING OK AS IS

9. DRAINAGE PLANS NEED APPROVAL OF ENGINEER

10. NO LANDSCAPING ON COLLEGE STREET AT THIS TIME

11. GENERAL DIRECTION OF LANDSCAPING ON SCHEME D IS GOOD

12. HEDGE AT ENTRANCE

13. SHOW SAMPLES OF FENCING MATERIALS; FINISHED SIDE OF FENCE

TO FACE OUTWARD

3

MR.APBPURRORVIESDS. SECONDED THE MOTION, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

Mr. Lukco complimented the GPC and the Board of Education for allowing citizen input and public participation in this process.

Paramount Companies and Michael Menzer, South Galway Drive

Mr. McAnally updated the group on the lighting plan, which will meet code and has been submitted to the engineers. He supplied percentage of permeable area per gross building area. The plan now shows the shared driveway on the east. The detention area is not a retention except when it rains a lot. Dedicated land was pointed out on the drawing. Mr. Reyazi said the dedicated land needs to be specified in writing in terms of location and use.

A problem arose with the landscaping, said Mr. McAnally,

because 42" bushes cannot be purchased and it is necessary to have 42" from the start. Mr. McAnally suggested a 6" build-up of earth to raise the height of 30" bushes, which, in addition to the 6" curb, will bring it to 42".

Mr. Reyazi said the lighting will have to be consistent with

street lighting plan, and Paramount is to provide street lighting. The developer (Mr. Murphy or Paramount?p)uts in street lights. Mr. Wince wants to listen to tapes from previous meetings on this subject.

For parking, the applicant does not want to go for variances.

Mr. Salvage suggested expanding building' s footprint to fit the ordinances.

For the joint access, when the south property develops, this

private drive will join with Fackler' s and this needs to be in

writing.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH FOLLOWING

MODIFICATIONS:

2a.- I 1. SHARED CURBCUT ON EAST AND CLOSE WEST DRIVE WHEN THAT

BECOMES AVAILABLE

2. HEDGE HEIGHT

3. LIGHTING PLAN WITH STREET LIGHTING

4. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP ISSUE; APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON

PARAMOUNT' S ACQUIRING THE LAND FROM MR. MURPHY 1, . A )

7. PROVIDE A NOTE ABOUT DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC USE

8. SCREENING OF PARKING LOT

9 INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES NEED APPROVAL OF VILLAGE COUNCIL

MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO PROPOSE A FORMAL THANK YOU TO REZA

REYAZI. I HAVE APPRECIATED HIS PROFESSIONALISM AND COOL

HEADEDNESS AND WANT OUR THANKS FORMALLY RECORDED IN THE

RECORD."MR. WILKENFELD STATED THAT MR. REYAZI HAS MADE

THIS EXPERIENCE DOABLE. THE PACKETS WE RECEIVE ALLOW US TO

DO A BETTER JOB, AND HE WILL BE SORELY MISSED.

PROFESSIONALLY AND PERSONALLY, HE IS A FINE MAN. MR. WERNET

s ADDED THAT HE HAS INTEGRITY, CONSISTENTLY. MR. STANSBURY

GAVE SPECIAL THANKS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION A

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A UNDER NEW

BUSINESS (BELLMAN) AND A AND B UNDER OLD BUSINESS (CHURCH

AND SCHOOL) AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD

SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 11: 10 p. m.

Next Meetings: July 13 and July 27

GPC Minutes 6/8/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 8, 1998

Minutes

Members Present: Wilkenfeld Jack Burriss, Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Carl

Members Absent: Gary Stansbury, Bill Wernet -Mr. Myers chaired the meeting in Mr. Stansbury' s absence Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden (Sentinel)T,od Darfus, Robin Bartlett, Marci McCaulay, Bernie Lucko, Sally Hannahs, Tim JKelifnfgler, Ken Richards, Jim Savage, Sarah and Larry Scheiderer, Idle, Shirley Maxwell, Jim Harf, Trudy Knox, Troy Reed, Robert and Wanda Field, Debbie Thomas, Lindsay 0' Leary, Mark Nicholas, Phil Wince

Minutes of May 26, 1997: Page 2, line 2, change "with" to wish.

At the meeting Mr. Wilkenfeld had asked about the red sign on the telephone outside the new bookstore, and Mr. Reyazi said he would investigate the sign.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR.

BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: Tim Flynn, who lives next door to the Blake house on East Elm, would like to be made aware of any possible changes to the driveway to the west. He hopes the driveway can be

placed further north rather than right next to his house.

Mr. Reyazi will put a note in the file, and we will all try to remember this request.

Old Business:

Tod and Kristin Darfus, 126 North Prospect Street

This application was continued from last meeting because of a lack of information. The applicant is seeking a permit for signs

which have already been installed.

They wish to receive approval for three 8. 45 sq. ft. window

signs, for a total of 25. 35 sq. ft. The ordinances permit window

signs not exceeding 15 per cent of total window area but in no case

exceeding 8 sq. ft for the building. These three signs exceed the 8

bseq. nfte.celsimsarity.. There are also other window signs. A variance ll

Mr. Darfus said they Eant&o- -clean up the place and remove the

neon signs. The old Granvilla signs were under the awnings and not

in good shape and not in a good location. They have only moved the

sign lower. There are 17 windows across the building, five storefronts

and 13 leased offices upstairs. He said this is one building

on one lot. The Granvilla has one 32"x39" sign for each of its

three businesses.

Mr. Reyazi said they will need a variance. One window sign

was approved in 1996 and now we are talking about three different

window signs. Each business can have two signs. Mr. Myers asked

Mr. Darfus if he would be willing to remove one window sign in

order to meet the code (two signs per business),and Mr. Darfus

said Yes, although this will be costly. He will still need a

variance for total square footage for building. If we grant a

variance, it would be for the Granville only.

a) That special circumstances peculiar to the land or conditions exist which are applicable to other laonrdsstructure(s) involved and which are not district. Special circumstaonrcesstructures in the same zoning the multiple tenancy. are the size of the building and

b) That 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. The business would not have any signs if ordinance were strictly interpreted. C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Not applicable. The

owner did not build the building.

d) That the 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. There are

no similar structures with multiple tenants.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the

pvearrsiaonnscer.esiding or working within the vicinity of the proposed Not applicable.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO REMOVE APPLICATION FROM TABLE; MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO SIGNS FOR

TCHRIISTEBRUIAS.INESS, SUBJECT TO THE DISCUSSIdN WE JUST HAD ON THE MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UMANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Paramount Companies and Michael Menzer, South Galway Drive

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO REMOVE APPLICATION FROM TABLE; MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Joe Hickman brought the group up to date on discussions

between Paramount and the Village about securing a ROW from Galway

to the rear portion of the site plan. It seemed best to secure it

at the eastern portion with a joint private driveway. Mr. Murphy

would give the ability to acquire 30' on the east end. Other

curbcuts were not discussed. Mr. Hurst had asked that GPC address

the issues of site plan and leave ROW acquisition to Village

Council.

Mr. Reyazi said he did not receive anything until Friday

afternoon, so nothing has been reviewed.

Phil Wince thought the only thing missing was the grading plan

and that cannot be done until the ROW is resolved. He understood

that by allowing joint curbcuts, that would solve the issue of

interconnecting parking lots.

Pending issues were discussed:

Lot Coverage. Still needed are the permeable/impermeable

areas so percentage of coverage can be evaluated.

Build-to Line. Since building is on a curve, Mr. Salvage is

2

satisfied with the portico placed on the build-to line. Others agreed.

Density. density It is assumed applicant is taking advantage of bonuses. We need to talk about dedication of open space. Landscape Plan. The landscaping plan does not show screening of parking. There should be a (1) 42" minimum hedge or stone wall, and (2) names of species. 3) Mr. Wince said they would relocate the 6Ptarereksingan/d effectively screen parking and (4) add 6 trees. Square Footage. Mr. Reyazi said one of the issues of the parking requirement was to evaluate occupiable space, which says no more than one per 250 sq. ft. Now there are one per 224 gross building area. If we interpret it as net sq. ft.,they will e within code. They are to provide net leasable area. Sidewalk. Sidewalks may be 5',the group agreed. Open Space. Mr. Reyazi wants to know how the applicant will meet open space requirements. Mr. Wince believed the area will in- clude the pond. Applicant wants to take advantage of the bonus dedicated public space, and this needs to be clarified on the plans.

Detention Pond. It' s hard to talk about this without

engineering drawings.

Massing. This is OK.

Lighting Plan. This was only received Friday afternoon, and no one has had time to study it. Mr. Reyazi said the Village would consider lower wattage and lower pole.

betweePnedestrian Environmen Enhancement. There should be a pathway areas. C 1 3 w-

Traffic Impact. (It/status of the Memo of Understanding is still uncertain. Mr8.6\1.vage thought the traffic impact responsibility of should be the original developer, not each individual applicant. When Galway was designed, it assumed certain capac- ities, which are slowly being absorbed by the condos. Mr. Reyazi

said that under the Memo of Understanding there would be an under- standing between the village and the applicant, for someone has to assume responsibility. Village Council is in the process Of carrying

out a Needs Study. If such a study shows improvements are necessary,

they would put into place a mechanism for providing this. The ordinance states that the plan will be approved as long as it does not "adversely impact traffic patterns nor increase traffic

usage of municipal streets to the detriment of the safety and welfare of the public."There could be a recommendation to Village

Council to resolve this with the applicant. Mr. Myers does not

want to mix this up with the site plan nor require a traffic plan. 91 Signs. There are to be two landscaped limestone retainingwall

signs totaling 12. 5 sq. ft, which exceeds the 10 sq. ft maximum

and would require a variance. Light is behind signs. This needs

clarification.

Traffic control. Mr. Wince said this could not be addressed

until the ROW situation is resolved.

To sum up, the applicant needs to provide:

1. Percentage of permeable surfaces

2. Net leasable area

3. Public-use open space area

Understanding needs clarification or some idea of s future needs

5. Grading plan

6. Lighting plan

7. Sign lighting

8. Traffic-control signs

9. Location of shared curbcut and connection

10. Landscaping plan. Relocate 6 trees and add 6 trees

11. Detention pond should be part of the plan 12. Define ownership issues

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PENDING RECEIPT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Granville Exempted Village School District, 130 N. Granger St.

Mark Nicholas, Project Manager, explained the plans for a 13- space parking lot for employees, including one handicapped spot. A variance is needed for (1) setback, (2) number of spaces, and (3) dimensions of spaces. They have consulted with neighbors and as a result, reduced the number of spaces and moved the spaces to the

west. He showed drawings giving location of three lots on East College Street. They propose a 10' barrier between edge of pavement and property line. Trash dumpster will be screened, and other

landscaping will provide a buffer. The school board would like to

provide 7 more spaces along Granger for meetings.

Mr. Myers reminded GPC that work sessions are not to start after 10 p. m. unless a majority of members agrees to do so. Consensus agreed to continue.}

Bernard Lucko reiterated concerns of the neighbors: (1) No angle parking on Granger and (2) provide adequate buffer. Jim Harf

explained that angle parking was not part of the Board' s discussion;

it in the plans in case the Village wants it.

Robin Bartlett added that her back yard is 15' from the lot

and wants the parking shifted as far west as possible. She prefers

a brick wall as screening. Only four people work in the building

now, with one vacancy, so 13 spaces are more than adequate, espec- ially with parking at the new elementary school. Approval of

application should consider only the day-to-day needs, not the

monthly school board meeting. Mr. Salvage thought 13 spaces would

not be enough for proposed uses for this multipurpose building, but

he will go along with the school board' s compromise.

Marci McCaulay doesn' t think this plan is what the school

board approved. They did not address setback on the side. Again,

she does not want angle parking and insists the lot be as small as

possible with minimum intrusion into the neighborhood. Sally

Hannahs seconded these comments.

Mr. Harf responded that the Board was sensitive to the neighbors'

concerns and originally, wanted the lot flush with the building.

They will limit;hccess to workdays only.

officeM.r. Wilkenfeld stated this is a residential area with an light, People who live there need protection from nuisance, and sound. Screen the area heavily and maybe add a wall or fence. He would like to see the side of Granger look residential and turn the wide sidewalks into more green area, less concrete.

Mr. Burriss is not satisfied with the site plan. What is to be planted is not determined. Landscaping is critical, and he is not sure that mounding would look good. He wondered how the school board will limit access. Mr. Harf said they will investigate a key card system or a chain or something. He is open to suggestions. Mr. Myers cautioned the applicants to seriously consider the disepth of the three lots on College Street. Adding 10' of mounding considerable. He reiterated the issues of concern:

1. Reintroduction of tree lawn and installation of trees 2. Additional detail on landscaping plans

3. Size of plant material for buffer or fence

4. Consider substituting planting for mounding

5. Lighting on the lot; consider wall-mounted, shoebox, light; provide cutsheet; note current street lighting

6. BZBA approval of variances

m7in.imCuomnsider leaving parking spaces 9' x20',vs. the ordinance of 10' x20. Mr. Harf will look into this.

8. No angle parking on Granger Street

9. Sketch of dumpster area

10. Resolve issue of limiting access after hours

Mr. Wilkenfeld stressed the importance of making this plan the best possible design, located as it is in such a busy part of town.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PENBDING RECEIPT OF FURTHER INFORMATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

At this point Mr. Myers recused himself and put Mr. Salvage in charge}

Work Session:

Thornewood Subdivision, Lots 27, 28, 29 on West Broadway

Mr. Erhard, attorney, brought the group up to date on development

plans for the three steep lots in the TCOD. Originally they

planned three single family homes within 50' of ROW. Now they

would like to place one three- or four-unit dwelling over two lots

and leave the third lot in trees. This would be violating the TCOD

but would permit no curbcuts because access would be from the rear.

Existing trees in front would be undisturbed.

Mr. Hersam added that they changed to cluster housing to

accommodate recommendations from GPC. GPC did not want any

building to take place within the first 50',including sidewalks.

The designers planned three or four two-story 1400 sq. ft. units

with garages and parking in rear. Each roof would be stairstepped

to follow the hill.

Troy Reed reported project that the neighbors have learned of the and wanted to voice their objection with a petition, stressing that the officials should adhere to all regulations. They are opposed to a multipurpose building. Trudi Knox added that any road needs truck access, and there is no way for a truck to exit this driveway. She stated that it' s unfair that some people need driveways and others do not. Mr. Salvage said that the 100' TCOD was instituted to maintain scenic entrances and to minimize curbcuts. He added that the original plan had a road going all the way around. When residents

objected, GPC required them to remove it. GPC thought a single unit would offer the least impact on the village and suggested using the existing driveway with no additional access points on West Broadway. Lots 29 and 30 were to remain greenspace. In February Ken Richards, neighbor to the west, had written a letter, adamantly opposed to granting a variance from the 100' setback because he was denied the same privilege and because of fear of congestion from multifamily dwellings and increased traffic, noise, and trash. Other homes in the area may not be 100' back, but they were built before TCOD was enacted. Consistency

should be assumed from our elected officials.

Tom Sawyer' s concern is about setting precedents here and about his lack of privacy.

Mr. Wilkenfeld feels strongly about the 100' setback, but applicant would have to build on the cliff. When GPC considered

cluster housing in order to preserve open space, condos were not considered. He asked the neighbors which was more upsetting:

cluster houses within 50' of the ROW, separate houses with access to the rear, or would you prefer no housing at all? Mr. Sawyer

said that just because there is vacant land, there does not have to be housing on it. This is an economic matter for two people.

Ms. Knox had read about this plan in the Sentinel, which added

that Mr. Stansbury and others had no objection, but neighbors were not consulted.

Consensus of neighbors appeared to be that they wanted the builders to adhere to the 100' setback. Some lots are not buildable.

Sally Scheiderer stated that an owner has a right to build on his land, but she would prefer to see single-family units. She

would not like to see excessive concrete and stone and this plan

would not fit the style of other houses there now.

Mr. Salvage sees a lot of opposition, but he feels the

proposal is a good idea. The next step is to bring in an

application.

Mr. Erhard said that because of topological problems this

board can reduce the minimum to 50',preserve green space, and stay within the ordinances. Mr. Kobunsky added that they could go back

100' but you would see no trees, and Mr. Salvage stated that GPC is

inclined to want to protect green space.

Mr. Burriss said cluster housing can share a common wall of

trees. One driveway is better than three or four, and it is better

in the rear. It is important to consider consistency of build-to

lines with other buildings in the area. One building is 38' back

and one is 59' with a 6' porch.

Wanda Field over Newark becausceanoufntdheerstand profits but she paid extra taxes trees and the lot. She does not want to lose property value. Mr. Herson said he bought the property in 1970 and because of maintenance and taxes, there is not much profit otof btheregeainloetds.. Based upon setback he is going to go back to the idea

Mr. Richards wants members of the GPC to be considerate of neighbors' feelings. Be consistent for all applicants as well as looking at nearby setbacks.

Mr. Salvage appreciated all comments expressed tonight.

Finding of Fact:

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR DARFUS AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 11: 20 p. m.

Next Meetings: June 22 and July 13

GPC Minutes 5/26/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 26, 1998

Minutes

Members Present: Jack Stansbury, Burriss, Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Gary Bill Wernet, Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent:

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden (Sentinel)B, ruce Westall, Ned WRoinbceerts, Mike Menzer, Don Turner, Gary McAnally, Bryan Law, Phil

Mchineurrteystroef Mea.y"11, 1997: Page 1, halfway down, H"e will retain the

Page 3, 6th line up, "Edith Schories, a neighbor, stated..." MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: none

Old Business:

Bryan S. Law, 346 East College Street

This application was continued from last meeting. Mr. Law explained that he wants to expand the porch with a 16' x12' addition going north, add new roof consistent with rest of the house, and close in THE carport roof. The neighbor and Mr. Law will work to- gether on a fence, which will match existing fence. The porch will

be on 6x6 posts with footers, and the door is glass. There will be

another fountain in the back. lot coverage will need a variance. MR. MYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION PENDING BZBA APPROVAL FOR LOT COVERAGE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Don and Mary Alice Turner, 226 South Mulberry

The application had been continued until Mr. Turner obtained signature of current owner for approval of changes to replace the cement columns, install a fence, and add a deck. The signature was received.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bruce Westall, 241 East Maple Street

The application had been continued because GPC felt they did not have sufficient information to consider lt. More details

having been received, tonight Ned Roberts explained the plans further. He described the tie between sections and how the roof

will look. The foundation line will consistently match the line of

the kitchen. The tree will remain, and the driveway will go around

it. The driveway will slope down from the street to a drain and

then level out. The applicant owns the lot to the south.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR GARAGE AND

LAUNDRY ROOM ADDITION AS PROPOSED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,

AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James and Beth White, 125 West Elm Street

The applicatioanpplicants with to modify their previously approved MR. WILKfEoNrFEaLD3' picket fence to change the height to 3.5'. MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Kristin Darfus, 136 North Prospect Street

Ms. Darfus was absent, and Mr. Reyazi stated that this is an interesting situation because the signs she requests have already bsheoewn installed, and there is a discrepancy between what the records and what has been put up. She wishes to receive approval for three 8. 45 sq. ft window signs, for a total of 25. 35 sq. ft. The

ordinances permit window signs not exceeding 15 per cent of total window area but in no case exceeding 8 sq. ft. for the building. There are also other window signs. Ms. Darfus feels she has only moved signs, but Mr. Reyazi' s records show GPC only granted a variance for an 8 sq. ft sign.

be Members wanted to table the application until Ms. Darfus could present.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Paramount Companies and Michael Menzer, South Galway Drive

Mr. Reyazi said he does not have all the plans necessary to consider the application and he has not had sufficient time to study the plans completely. He could not recommend approval based

otonntihgeht.information he has, but it' s up to GPC whether to continue

Gary McAnally felt he provided what was necessary from Bird and Bull and a lighting layout, and Mr. Menzer stated that this was what was required at the last meeting. However, Mr. Reyazi said

the plans are still not complete, and there has been insufficient time to study the plans and see whether the applicable ordinances have been addressed.

Still needed (12 days before the next meeting) are:

1. Landscape plan

2. Final site plan with elevations

3. Be sure all ordinances have been complied with.

4. Access line-up with Galway

5. Engineering plans with drainage and grading

6. Civil packet

7. Service driveway

8. Future additions and additional parking lot

9. Number of curb cuts

10. Connection to adjacent properties

11. Traffic estimate; traffic control; stop signs

Easement to Galway

Approval of Streets Lighting and Sidewalks Committee for the development and public street lighting plan

the oMptri.onMyers stated that GPC was going to give Village Council that such to get an easement to Fackler' s, and Mr. Wernet added footage foarnopeeansemspeanctew. ould not count against minimum square

road. Mr. Wince said they are not going to give the Village the Mr. Menzer is not interested in interconnecting parking lots, but Mr. Myers said this is required by the code.

Mr. Reyazi would recommend combined curb cuts and adjacent service drive, with access points at either end of the property. It is not the Village' s responsibility to pay for a service road that would serve three commercial properties. 'Mr. Menzer repeated that he is willing to negotiate a ROW but will not pay for the service road nor provide common access through his parking lot. Mr. Menzer said GPC should come to an understanding and a basic interest in his development and be realistic about what will be developed in the community. He does not think it is consistent with the code and he will move his plan elsewhere if GPC insists upon it. He does not want to put his employees at risk. Also, he does not want to put in stop signs. He wants the Village to either

panady tforar ftfhice esatusedmieesn.t or offset it against future road improvement Mr. Myers said the GPC was willing to reduce Dthreiveop. enTshpisaceisrequirement in order to align the road with Donegal unbuildable land. Mr. Menzer held firm to his statements.

Mr. Salvage understands Mr. Menzer' s situation of not wanting interconnections with an office building and a commercial center. However, some kind of connection is appropriate to Fackler' s but he doesn' t see why GPC should require Mr. Menzer to build it. Para- mount' s plans are what he would like to see in that area. If the applicant would agree to provide access easement through the parking lot, this would move forward quickly. Maybe a compromise could be arrived at. He said the applicant was surprised tonight because staff had not had time to review plans. Others thought this should not have been a surprise. Mr. Reyazi said he did accommodate them as best he could, in view of the less than 12-day minimum timeframe he was given, and would prefer to refer applicant to ordinances because he did not want to miss anything.

Mr. Myers said "you can' t piecemeal a review,"and since there

are still drawings we need, we could continue this until next meeting.

Mr. Wernet said this design is what the Comprehensive Review

Committee had in mind and he would hate to see this not happen.

He said a mini development needs a traffic study in order to get a true estimate of use.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION. MR. WILKENFELD

3

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED BUSINESS ( TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A,B,C,D UNDER OLD FACT. LAW, TURNER, WESTALL, WHITE) AS FORMAL FINDING OF MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9: 15 p. m.

Next Meetings: June 8 and June 22

5/27/98

I looked up my notes taken I at the meeting of July 1, 1996, and am quoting them pretty much word-for-word for your edification:

it' Mr. Darfus said the sign is adhering to the sign code; s 8 sq. ft. It reflects the name of the business. The

color is outlined in burgundy, with cream; the old sign was silver with black background. This replaces the old sign.

Application needs variance for total sign area for the building and the number of signs total. You can only have

four signs on the whole building, but there are several businesses there. He will repaint the awning. There' s the

sign in the window and the 2 neon signs. The neon signs are in the pizza area. The second sign is in the pick-up area. This is to be in the third window. The new awning will not have any lettering on it; it will duplicate the colors.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE SIGNS AS REQUESTED. MR.

SHULMAN SECONDED. Mr. Stansbury had some question but he

voted yes when he learned that there are two businesses.

There is 30' between all signs. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

GPC Minutes 5/11/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 11, 1998

Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Gary Stansbury, Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Members Absent: Bill Wernet, Carl Wilkenfeld

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawden (Sentinel)J, . Morey, Bruce WScehsntaaildl,t,Gordon Condit, Stuart Brown, Heather Titley, David Jim Petty, Edith Schories, Virginia King, Ned Roberts, Jake and Jan Thiele, Mike Menzer, Don Turner, Gary McAnally

Minutes of April 27, 1997:

There were so many corrections to the minutes that a new, corrected copy is included in your packet.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: none

Old Business:

David and Becky Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street

Discussion was continued from the last meeting. Mr. Schnaidt clarified some issues requested of him about drainage and slight change in plans in light of BZBA' s denial of variance. He assured members that cars will be able to drive down the grade to the garage without scraping.

The material will be painted stone or split-faced block, which will look better than brick.

Regarding the size, he stated that he cut down considerably

1111 1 ht ho-epessecond floor addition in the back and moved it 12' back. He to retain the cherry tree .

Jake Thiele assured the applicant that he will work for

mutual respect, but he wants the ordinance to be obeyed. Jan

Thiele added that she thought the historic district was here to stay, and her more personal concerns were (1) danger of fire from chimney, (2) drainage, (3) elimination of light, (4) annoyance of windows facing windows, and negative impact from these things.

Mr. Schnaidt said there will be no windows, only false windows

to make the south face more pleasing.)

Virginia King stated that her husband, Horace, put the town

on the National Register of Historic Places and she hopes that

variances will not continue to be granted. She would prefer to

see the applicants' house as it was originally. Mr. Schnaidt did

not think his house was on the National Register. Mr. Reyazi

added that changes to houses in the National Register are only

affected when an applicant requests federal funds. Mike Menzer

stated that if a person wanted to historically restore a home, it

would be subject to certain limitations. Mr. Myers cdnsidered

this a tough judgment call when you change historic buildings

because you cannot force a homeowner to hire an architect. The vniellcaegsesairsilyablwaady. s in change, so a certain amount of change is not Houses need to be upgraded. Mr. Burriss added that houses have to accommodate people living in them. This plan aist not out of line with what could have been done to the building an earlier time.

the hBisrutocericWedsistatlrl icist. also concerned about granting variances in He was denied a variance to his own house and thinks everyone should make applications fit the ordinances.

Mr. Myers asked for details about the chimney, and Mr. CRoedyea.zi said it will have to be approved by the Newark Building

ThieleMr. Schnaidt stated that the area between his garage and the house will be gravel. Mr. Myers asked whether he would consider landscaping, to alleviate draining problems, and Mr. Schnaidt said he might eventually do that. Later in the meeting hseousthaidsidhee.would be willing to turf and landscape the area on the

Mr. Salvage asked about the easement. The area is owned by

the Schnaidts, but the neighbors use it for their lawntractor.

Mr. Reyazi said that it is supposed to be open to provide access to the back of the property, and Mr. Schnaidt said neighbors would not be opposed to releasing the easement. Mr. Schnaidt

said that the wall will come down and the ground will be sloped but not change grade.

Mr. Burriss thought the rear door on the ground floor should

be moved to one side or the other, and Mr. Schnaidt thought he could put it on one end.

Mr. Stansbury stated that quite a few of our decisions are subjective in nature, and we do not question why an applicant does what he does. He finds nothing that will degrade the

property, and it does meet all codes and setbacks. We try to do

what' s best for everyone.

Mr. Wilkenfeld understands the Thieles' situation but thinks

this may turn out for the best.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE

CONDITION THAT THE REMAINING 10' FROM THE DRIVEWAY SOUTH BE

REMOVED AND LANDSCAPED SUBJECT TO EASEMENT RESTRICTIONS.

MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Sally Hannahs, 423 East College Street

2

The applicant was absent screen and build but wishes to remove the porch and a deck on rear of house, 1' from the west property line. She would also like to replace the fence on south and west boundaries with a new 4'-6' fence.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION PENDING APPROVAL BY BZBA FOR THE SETBACK VARIANCE. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED WITH ONE NAY VOTE (MR. WILKENFELD).

Bryan S. Law, 346 East College Street

The applicant wishes to make extensive improvements to his house, and since he was absent and members had questions, the application was tabled.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO CONTINUE APPLICATION. MR. SALVAGE

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Stuart and Emily Brown, 317 East Maple Street

The applicants with to build an addition to west and rear of the house, with block foundation, white rough sawn cedar siding and green shingles. It will not be visible from the street, and will be landscaped.

Mr. Wernet appreciated receiving very nice and complete plans.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO ACCEPT APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.

SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Don and Mary Alice Turner, 226 South Mulberry

The Turners wish to build a wooden deck to the rear of the

house, add a picket fence along a portion of north property line,

and replace cement block columns of front porch with round pine

columns and remove glass from porch. Mr. Turner stated that the

neighbors have no objections to the plans. He said there will be

a railing and steps with rails.

Mr. Salvage noted that Mr. Turner is not yet the owner of

the house, and Mr. Turner stated that the realtor said he should

get started even though he does not officially own it. Mr.

Wernet suggested getting the current owner to apply along with

Mr. Turner, and Mr. Reyazi thought approval should be made conditional

upon having clear title to the house. Mr. Salvage does

not think we should act but instead give an indication of how the

GPC feels. He personally likes the plan.

Edith Schories,

-

ne* t door, stated that the old shed is

rotten and should be replaced. She is pleased to meet her new

neighbor. She would like to know just where the property line is.

The area around the shed needs to be cleaned up.

In answer to a question by Mr. Burriss, Mr. Turners said the

columns will not go all the way to the floor.

3

4

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO CONTINUE MODIFICATIONS APPLICATION PENDING ON APPLICATION ADDING CURRENT OWNER. MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bruce Westall, 241 East Maple Street

Mr. Westall wishes to attach to his house a two-car garage and laundry with access on South Pearl Street. Ned Roberts described the plans. He said the tree will be preserved with access around it. It will have redwood lap siding with flat shingle roof. Mr. Salvage did not like the idea of flat roof. Window will match kitchen windows. Mr. Burriss wanted more elevation detail with windows. Mr. Roberts can provide infor- mation before the next meeting, so application was continued.

Work Session:

Michael Menzer, South Galway Drive

Gary McAnally described the modified plans he drew up following the last session.

Site Plan: He showed how his plans relate to Fackler' s project with one curb on the left. Number of parking spaces is rfuedtuurceed by 8. There is no connecting driveway except through -t_lwB-Er- easement.

Storm Drainage: He showed a plan with catch basins leading

to detention area, not tied into the parking area drainage. Mr. Matyterrascwtivouel.d like to see the retention pond sculpted and made Mr. Reyazi said that Fackler' s does not have a detention basin.

Intersection: It was noted that the easement does not match

up with entrance to Donegal. Mr. McAnally thought their road

could be bent a little so that it will line up as long as it does not lessen their greenspace. GPC members thought this request could be accommodated.

Landscape Plan: The buf fer for parking lot is 8' spruce. Along front and side of parking are crab apple and red maple.

There will be yews and boxwood, and the detention area will have

boxwood. Mr. Myers reminded them about the requirement for street

trees beside sidewalk and street. Mr. Menzer will check plans

with the Tree and Landscape Committee and trees will be noted on

future plans with a dot.

Lighting Plan: The plans will meet standards.

Signs: They will bring in a plan for a low masonry sign at the entrance.

Traffic Study: Mr. Wince reported on three meetings he had

with with Village representatives at which there was not any

definitive answer at first regarding traffic impact, but they

reached agreement in terms of expediting the process. Staff

thought there should be more than just a cursory study. There

was a Memo of Understanding regarding the Village' s traffic

study, and tribute the applicant would know he would be required to con- ments neacefsasairrys. haTrehisofwbooutlhd cost of the study and the improve- be in the form of a recommendation to Village Council.

GPC members thought that since the study was not done satis- factorily in early stages of development, future developers should not be held responsible for one. Mr. Reyazi said that Mr. pFraocjkelcetr. had to do one because his was a unique and complicated He thought there might be more trip generations than in the first traffic study. GPC members want to see the original study. Mr. Myers wants to get the base-line data, and Mr. Reyazi will get this data showing numbers projected for Menzer' s land.

Applications/ Consistencies:

Members discussed the problems encountered when applicants provide incomplete applications. Mr. Wilkenfeld wants to provide applicants with samples and a checklist. Scale drawings should be required and applicants should review design standards. Mr.

Salvage wants to see packets earlier in the week.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A UNDER OLD

BUSINESS (SCHNAIDT) AND ITEMS A AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS

HANNAHS AND BROWN) AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 10: 55 p. m.

Next Meetings: May 26 and June 9

GPC Minutes 4/27/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 27, 1998

Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Carl Wilkenfeld, Keith Myers,

Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Bill Wernet

Members Absent: Betty Allen

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Rochelle Steinberg, Robin Bartlett, David

Bussan, Katie Richards, Beth White, Sam Schnaidt

Minutes of April 13, 1997:

Page 2, Line 3, change "renewal" to removal. Under (A)

under County Savings Bank, change to "in.c.h.aracter with the

building and the Architectural Review District.

IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: Rochelle Steinberg showed a blueprint of the

parking lot at the old middle school, showing the architect' s

plan for 13 parking spaces. Their group wants the lot moved

closer to Granger Street and the number of spaces reduced to 8

spaces. They want the line of the lot to be contiguous with the

side of the building and no diagonal parking on Granger. The

superintendent wants to keep one area and neighbors are uncomfortable

with that issue and would like that connected with Lots

2 and 3. Please keep in mind what the neighbors want.

Robin Bartlett and Dave Bussan want the people to know that

just tearing down the building doesn' t necessarily improve the

neighborhood. The brick wall is to protect neighbors from bright

lights.

New Business:

David Bussan, 420 East Broadway

The applicant wishes to replace two double-hung windows in

the kitchen with a double-hung bay window (3 windows).Mr.

Bussan explained the treatment under the window. The application

falls within the code.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.

AFTER A SECOND, MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Katie and Ken Richards, 1034 West Broadway

The applicants wish to add an 18' x21. 6' two-story addition

to the west side of the house. Mrs. Richards gave more details

of the plan. It' s in the TCOD, and Mr. Reyazi' s concern is that

the house is less than 100' but there are provisions to reduce

setback by GPC. It needs to be consistent with the rest of the

neighborhood. Since they are not encroaching further into the

setback, the impact would seem to be minimal.

IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE SUBMITTED. APPLICATION AS MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James and Beth White, 125 West Elm Street

The applicants with to add a white picket fence, 3' high with 2 gates to the front yard. On the right side of the house it will attach to a cement wall. Mr. Reyazi wants the Whites to check on the exact lot lines. Appicants were told to place the finished side of the fence on the outside.

IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

David and Becky Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street

The Schnaidts wish to add a three-story addition to the rear of the house for a two-car garage, facing Mulberry Street. They will remove a one-car garage from the site. It will be 10' from

side lot line. The new roof will be lower than the existing

house because of the grade and will tie in below the fascia of the existing house. They propose a 7"12/" pitch, lower than the existing house.

The Thieles, next door, do not want new windows looking into their house. So the plan provides fixtures with shutters and no windows. They plan extra windows on the other sides. Mr.

Schnaidt explained the plans in detail. It will be offset 4' to

the east in order to have less facing on Mulberry and to allow less of a grade into the garage.

The driveway will have a 15 per cent grade, which will be difficult to drive on. A sidewalk shouldn' t be part of the

grade. Mr. Burriss wants to know the distance from the sidewalk

to edge of the garage. Mr. Schnaidt said it was 16'.

Jake Thiele brought up concerns about the height and how to determine setback. In the VRD side yard setback is 10' and front

setback is determined by other houses. This would appear to be a front yard, but others were uncertain. The height is determined

by other structures, and the question is how does this relate to

the Thiele' s house. The application will have to go to the BZBA

for setback. The Thiele house is about 9' from lot line.

Mr. Burriss was concerned about the slate roof, and Mr.

Schnaidt said it was put on around 1901 and is in solid shape.

Roofing material is needed the application.

Mr. Burriss was concerned about drainage, and where downspouts

will go. Mr. Schnaidt said it' s not a good situation now.

There is a PVC tile but he would not tie into it. He described

how the future rainwater would course down to the street. There

will be a drain inside garage door.

Mr. Schnaidt said there is a 6' ROW for the eastern neighbors'

lawntractor; it is Schnaidt property and the plan will not

l.j-

2

1 1(,

go into the ROW.

It is up to GPC whether there should be a variance for height. Mr. Salvage asked for dimensions showing distance from existing and proposed structures to see the drop better. Mr. Burriss wanted such a profile to include height of garage door and where floor of garage is. What is the height of the neighbor' s house. Drainage should be on the drawing. The

Thieles were concerned about the chimney. Mr. Schnaidt said it will be a woodburning brick fireplace within interior walls, groooinfg. out to the stack and capped: Top of chimney is 12' from It would be 18' from the Thiele house.

Mrs. Thiele asked about lights on the side of the garage, and Mr. Schnaidt said there would be a bracket fixture. Granville'

s lighting code would enter in here.

They chose one garage door instead of two in order to avoid taking up room with a support in the middle.

Mr. Myers asked about the trees.

Windows were discussed and Mr. Schnaidt is considering an architectural element under the window.

Mr. Myers suggested tabling until we see a cross-section for the driveway, setback for Mulberry, height, relationship to ex- isting house and Thiele house, Elm Street elevation, drainage. The height would not seem to be a concern for GPC. Mr. Reyazi

will inform BZBA of tonight' s discussion before their special meeting on Thursday.

Mr. SALVAGE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION FROM APPLICANT. AFTER A SECOND, IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Applicant will bring in information by the next meeting.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR B, C, AND D.

BUSSAN, RICHARDS, WHITE) UNDER OLD BUSINESS AS FORMAL

FINDING OF FACT. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:

Next Meetings: May 26 and June 11.

GPC Minutes 4/13/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 13, 1998

Minutes

Members Present: Bill Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Wernet, Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent: Jack Burriss

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),Bill Winton, Mike Davis, Roger Kessler, Patti from ReMax, Judith Thomas, Michael and FCaynritshia Menzer, Larry McAnally, Kent Staka, David Bussan, April

Minutes of March 23, 1997:

Page 2, No. 2, last line under Fackler' s, change to "an.d.. letting Village Council decide what they want to do on C.V. Road and, if necessary, request more ROW.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. MYERS SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of March 30: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED AND MR. SALVAGE SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: Dave Bussan is part of a neighborhood group around the old middle school who put together packets of informa- tion for GPC members regarding parking. They desire to keep the

parking to a minimum to keep the neighborhood residential.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO MOVE THAT WE ADJUST OUR AGENDA FOR THIS

EVENING TO ADDRESS A,B, C,D UNDER NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE OLD BUSINESS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

New Business:

Art Pietrafess, 204 S. Pearl Street

The applicant wishes to replace two kitchen windows on the

south side with three windows in order to accommodate a new kitchen

counter.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.

MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Brett and April Faris, 428 East College Street

The applicants wish to replace the chainlink fence with a 42"

cedar picket fence in the same location.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Vincent and Mary Paumnier, 354 N. Granger Street

The new owners of this property want assurance that if the new

school needs the existing driveway for a new back entrance to the

oscf htohoel, they have permission to build a new one on the other side property. The neighbors to the south have no objection to this. A condition would have to be renewal of the old drive if tthheis cisurbg.ranted, for the school probably would not reseed and uncut standards. A new driveway would have to conform to Village

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT AT THE COMPLETION OF NEW DRIVEWAY, THE OLD DRIVEWAY WILL BE REMOVED AND RESTORED, AND BOTH AREAS ARE TO MEET STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE VILLAGE. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville IGA, 484 South Main Street

April The applicant wishes to put up a 30 sq. ft. temporary sign for 20-24 for a special sale.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

County Savings Bank, 143 East Broadway

This application was continued from the last meeting. Mr.

Kessler reported that they are willing to change the blue back- ground to the existing dark brown color and to reduce the size of the front fascia sign to 8 sq. ft and the size of the projecting sign to 8 sq. ft. The projecting sign will have an opaque back- ground and only the letters will be lit.

Mr. Stansbury reminded the group that our earlier discussion

was about how to measure the signs and we decided the entire sign

should be measured, but only one side of a two-sided sign should be measured. Any change in a nonconforming sign must bring it into compliance despite the fact that other signs violate this rule.

Since this is a pedestrian area rather than a thoroughfare, signs should be smaller. Mr. Hurst said measurement includes the entire

sign, which is 24 sq. ft. for the projecting sign, so the projecting sign would need a variance from the 8 sq. ft. maximum. Mr. Kessler

stated that they can reduce the wall sign to 4 sq. ft. Mr. Myers

then applied the criteria to the application:

A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are

peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not

applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. The GPC feels the unique projecting sign is in character

with the buildingl ARO D 4; 6*- / 14'S(Y B) That 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. Several VBD properties have

variances from the code.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The name change was not

an action of the applicant. A change in sign requirements of the

zoning code created a need for a variance.

D) That the granting applicant of the variance will not confer on the other landsany undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to or structures in the same zoning district. Applicant is in overall compliance.

E) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the vpearrsiaonnsce.resiNdoint gapoprlicwaobrlkei.ng within the vicinity of the proposed

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDED APPLICATION AND GRANT VARIANCE FOR SIGNAGE WITH COLOR CHANGE AS SUBMITTED ON THE PROJECTING SIGN. THE APPLICATION MEETS CRITERIA IN 1147. 03 AS DISCUSSED AND RECORDED IN THE MINUTES. THE CONDITION IS THAT FOR THE WALLM- OUNTED SIGN THE LETTERING AND GRAPHICS IN THE IMAGINARY RECTANGLE AROUND THE LETTERS WILL NOT EXCEED 4

SQ. FT. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

George Fackler, 2362 Newark-Granville Road

The applicant wishes to change the use of a 2108 sq. ft. build- ing that was previously used as a residence to retail sale of home and hearth products. They recently purchased Berry Barn' s woodstove business and wish now to stay open year-round,

necessitating use of the house to the east.

Mr. Reyazi stated that Mr. Fackler must comply with all ordinances,

i.e.,on-site parking, as changing the use constitutes development. The building would be used in a different way, chang- ing one permitted use to another permitted use. Mr. Fackler said

the house is on a separate lot; under 1175. 03 he can make this a separate operation with its own requirements. There are parking

spaces behind the building. Mr. Wernet thinks the parking fulfills

the requirements. It' s a modest plan.

Mr. Myers said it' s a piece of ground that has been used

commercially for permitted uses continuously for ten years by one owner. He is not adding to the building nor adding signage. MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.

SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Michael Menzer, South Galway Drive

Bill Wince explained the preliminary plans for a 40, 000 sq. ft.

office for new corporate headquarters of a real estate office

currently in Erinwood which needs to expand and consolidate

offices.

Mr. McAnally said the three-story building will have a 10, 000

sq. ft. footprint. The building is designed for 120 people with

possible expansion to 150 people. Parking for 150 spaces is in the

rear with room for expansion. A retention pond will lead to a

storm drain, and greenspace is provided.

Mr. Myers asked about the triple curbcuts and how the circulation

fits with the future Fackler complex. He would like to see a

pislan of the entire area with Fackler' s included, even though this a "9 to 5" office area. He would like to see no more than two curbcuts.

the pTohrechp.orch is 8' deep and the build-to line goes to the edge of They can push the plan forward if they wish. The facade of the main building is 38' from Galway and the buildings to the sides are farther back, so they are in compliance. Mr. Reyazi said that the applicant needs to be aware that the scenario from Galway to C.V. may change someday, and he needs to icnotnesrisdeecrtiopnosss. ible changes in preparing for future growth at all

Discussion ensued on whether applicant must provide a traffic survey, and Mr. Salvage thought this should have been done by Mr. Murphy a long time ago in considering the entire area, and Mr. pWreorpneetrtys. tated that a traffic study does not concern only one Mr. Myers suggested that our traffic engineer look at Cth.eV. pRosoasdib. le scenarios as Village Council defines its position on All he is interested in is to quantify the uses in order to quantify the impact. Other studies did not consider the intersections and this should be addressed. Mr. Reyazi stated that wthoeuldVillage would pay for some of such a survey and the applicant pay for some of it. It' s up to the Village to update traffic

surveys. Mr. Salvage cautioned that a traffic study should not hold up applicant' s plans lest he take his plans elsewhere. Mr. Wince thought a traffic study would not be needed for an office for 50-75 working people. Mr. Reyazi said that ordinances do not require traffic studies, rather, a traffic and parking plan, public and private drives, and pedestrian traffic. He wants to know the

impact of 75 cars making a turn between 8 and 9 a. m. Mr. Myers

thought all that was needed was an aggregate theory memo showing ingress and egress and parking requirements. Mr. Wernet thought

maybe a new study could be made reapportioning the remaining parcels.

What the applicant needs to provide now are: 1) overall

regional plan including Fackler' s; (2) impact on traffic con- gestion at intersections; (3) internal traffic flow and access roads; (4) greenspace provision; (5) where Donegal lines up, and where is the left turn lane; 6) reduce curbcuts; 7)

landscaping and screening in parking areas; (8) build-to line

for porch.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A UNDER OLD

BUSINESS AND A THROUGH E UNDER NEW BUSINESS AS FORMAL FINDING

OF FACT. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9: 56 p. m.

Next Meetings: April 27 and May 11.

GPC Minutes 3/23/1998

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 23, 1998

Minutes

Members Present: Members Keith Myers, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld Absent: Jack Burriss, Richard Salvage, Bill Wernet Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon Sentinel),Bill Winton, Mike

Davis, Roger Kessler, Ned Roberts, Ken and Katherine Richards

Minutes of March 9, 1997:

Page 2, No. 2, change to "Plans for mounding towards the ROW hDaveelebteeen revised and are gently sloping and steeper in the back." last sentence of No. 3. Delete "with 110' entrance" from No. 4.

Page 4, (3) under (a), li g"hts face the building, not exter- nally to the street."Under (b) last line, change w" ith" to what. Page 5, last two lines, RE"Q.U.IR.ED BY VILLAGE. ACCESS TO

CHERRY VALLEY WILL BE SHARED WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. MYERS SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: Ken and Katherine Richards were present to em- phasize the concerns in his letter of February 22 regarding the Kobunski/ Hersom project on West Broadway. The reasons for opposing

the rezoning and development are: 1) They selected their lot because

of the residential uncongested neighborhood. (2) Developmemnt will bring more noise and traffic. (3) When the Richardses proposed lot subdivision, GPC stressed adhering to the TCOD requirement and denied them a variance. Mr. Richards wanted GPC to give serious

thought as to why a developer should not be held to the same standards as a homeowner. 4) It' s important not to set precedents in cases like this. 5) If there is grant money or other money in

the village, purchase the lots and keep them the way they are.

New Business:

Ned Roberts, 348 East Maple

The applicant wishes to replace the two-story shed on the rear

of the house with a slightly narrower but 6' deeper addition. The

addition will be closer than 10' from property line on the east.

Mr. Roberts explained the ROW situation on an abandoned Granger St.

extension. The neighbors do not object to this change.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.

MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

County Savings Bank, 143 East Broadway

The applicants wish to change the name of the bank on pro- jecting sign and on the wall sign. Mike Davis explained that the

entire area of the projecting sign will be internally lit. After

discussion, Roger Kessler stated that they could subdue the blue in

the drawing. The actual size of the signs was in questionw-h-ether

1

ljeustttertshe, letters should be measured, or the background around the sides of or the entire framework for the sign. Also, are both a two-sided sign counted? Mr. Myers asked whether the sign on the building face could be eliminated, for removing the bwrainllg stighne asnigdnsconsidering the projecting sign as one-sided would into compliance. But Mr. Kessler said No. Mr. Wilkenfeld thought the projecting sign had some design merit and uMnr.attKraescstilveer hsoalieds.that removing the projecting sign would leave

quiresIn addition, the signs are nonconforming, and any change re- bringing them into conformance. GPC members stressed caution in the precedent-setting area. So many questions remained that Mr. Kessler asked to table application. MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO CONTINUE APPLICATION; MR. MYERS

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Fackler' s, 1960 Newark-Granville Road

The Finding of Fact from the last meeting needs to be ap- proved, and members made a few changes but preferred to have full membership present before final approval. Mr. Reyazi said it can be forwarded to Village Council as proposed Finding of Fact and that will get it on their agenda. They need to approve off-site improvements.

Mr. Reyazi introduced a problem with the engineering drawings: the 5' of extra ROW will be insufficient for tree lawn and side- walks. Another 12' is needed, but the plans have already been approved. Our sidewalk needs to be in the ROW. If another 7' is

granted, Fackler would have to move the ground sign back. If the

entire project is moved 7',that would eliminate several parking

spaces. Additional ROW would bring the edge of the ROW to the edge of the landscaping. Maybe the mounding will have to go. Mr. Reyazi suggested leaving the sidewalk where it is and letting Village r • ·

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHANGES TO THE FINDING OF FACT.

MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: Bob Evans has made some minor modifications in color

and lighting but nobody was present to discuss them.

Finding of Fact:

MR. MYERS MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR NED ROBERTS AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9:00 p.m.

Next Meetings: April 13 &27.

GPC Minutes 3/9/1998

GRANVILLE"PLANNING COMMISSION -' r·,·s'.,9··,9.1. .f··.t-'1¢:,r·r.T'4.n,:-:1·•·b.»'' .2:'·5· ·I."-2'.I.•,.

March 9, 1998

Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Bill Wernet, Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent:

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),Tim Snider, John Oney, Allen Baker, Joe Ridgeway, George Fackler, Ilkka Aro, James Hopson

Minutes of February 23, 1997:

Page 1, under Heim, Mr. Wilkenfeld made the motion. Under

Fackler' s, third line up, change "The" to 8

well'Page 2, end of first paragraph, A"C units will be in the on the roof. Group to clarify." End of paragraph 2 add

pending receipt of more information. Paragraph 3, Line 2 add

N-G/C.V. before "corner."

Page 3, Line 8, add lanes after "turn. "

visible on roof."

No. 23. "No AC units

Page 4. Line 5 add at time of approval. Under Certified Oil,

change MORPSY to MORPC.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR.

MYERS SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Camments: None

New Business:

Ilkka Aro, 335 Summit Street

The applicant wishes to enclose back yard with a 52" picket

fence for his child. The neighbors are agreeable to his plans.

The finished side of fence will face outward.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.

BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James and Julie Hopson, 318 East College Street

The applicants wish to build a wooden deck on top of the

existing brick patio, not extending beyond the footprint. There

will be a pergola, or arbor, supported by the house on the south

end and pillars on the north. The plan will require a side-yard

setback variance.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.

MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

2

Fackler' s, 1960 Newark-Granville Road

The application Reyazi' was continued from the last meeting, and Mr. s letter of February 26 to Mr. Oney lists unfinished issues. Mr. Oney stated that the plans have been revised to incor- psoervaetreal icsospuieess raised at the last meeting, and he distributed to GPC members. Pending Issues:

1. They have met with Jan Packard, of the Fire Department and added her requirements to the revised plans.

slopin2g. Plans for mounding haire been revisedCand are gently and more pleasing/Mr. Fackler met with Jim Siegel of the Tree and Landscape Committee, who likes the landscape plan. They will be doing more detail work tomorrow.

3. Jerry Turner has agreed with their submittal of plans for pounb-sliitce. and off-site improvements. These are private utilities, not Mr. Reyazi added that they will have to be accepted before a zoning certificate is issued. MnL.E-a' -rIzeL is cuiifidentth--atr-a-ll

issueere-mairrimg-will be resolrver:

4. Parking islands and entrance drives will be curbed.

Mr. Reyazi has drawn different curb radii and entrance widths and prefers 35' radius .dth 110-'*entrance-with curb and gutter. Mr.

Myers feels 50' is a serious radius and that the curb itself will control the radius. He wants to extend the curb another 30'-

40' down the street.

5. Mr. Reyazi thinks the best approach is to have a written

agreement between the applicant and the village, and Mr. Hurst will draw up a document. If and when access is provided to Galway, it

would be right-in/right-out only. In No. 5, change "structures " to modifications.

6. Mr. Snider has not had time to do an engineering drawing

but stated there will be a 100' stacking lane with 50' diverging taper. Mr. Wernet stated that participation is expected from the

applicant at such time as improvements and/ or widening of C. V. Road

are required. He added that Village Council requested language

that cements this, but others did not want to tie Fackler to a firm

commitment at this point. Mr. Reyazi said applicants will be told

this may happen and Village will determine what everybody' s portion will be. Mr. Wernet reported that V.C.' s concern was that later on

someone might say, "Why wasn' t this done earlier?"Much discussion

ensued and Mr. Fackler acknowledged that there might be changes and

assessments to the owner for these municipal improvements on C.V.

This will not be a condition of approval.

7. See No. 5.

8. Mr. Snider did not know whether crosswalks would be brick

3

or striped but it will be taken care of.

9. Mr. Oney said in the sidewalk would be 6' vs. the 5' required the ordinace, and Mr. Reyazi showed preference for concrete to be consistent with other walkways nearby. Mr. Salvage preferred 8' asphalt in order to accommodate passing bikes. Mr. Myers had thought 8' was good but then, after looking the situation over, felt 6' concrete would look better in this rural setting. Consensus agreed to 6' concrete.

10. Mr. Reyazi wants applicant to provide legal description for the additional 5' in ROW, and then a legal document will be drawn up.

11. The posts will be 6'

match building. Mr. Wernet wan

Village Council showing how

coming out the drive through.

rough sawn cedar posts stained to

ts something drawn and itemized for

the circulation works, especially

12. Village Engineer has approved this.

13. The cross-access easements will be at both east and west areas.

14. Discussion arose as to what area is to be considered for the lot coverage. Mr. Oney figured the lot line property boun- daries, and then deducted ROW, according to the ordinance, result- ing in 63 per cent coverage in the permeable areas.

Some members thought it should include sidewalks. Mr.

Wilkenfeld stressed the importance of this issue for precedent- setting reasons. Mr. Myers thought future calculations should go to the ROW rather than the curb. But in this case we got the

setbacks and bigger sidewalks and more greenspace, so the plan does

not look overdeveloped. This matter should be clarified in the

code.} Mr. Myers thought the calculation could be divided out by

acres with a required drawing. Mr. Reyazi stated that we are going

to the edge of the pavement not including sidewalks, and he wants

to see a drawing with calculations. Mr. Wilkenfeld thought 75 per

cent coverage was too high. Any new developers will have to abide

by the new code, which requires 6' sidewalks, and the calculation

should go to the lot line. We need a new drawing showing 6'

sidewalk and lot coverage not to exceed 70 per cent from edge of

pavement. The sidewalk is deducted from the total area.

15. Mr. Miller described the total sign package and said a

variance is required. All inside signs will be consistent in

lettering and materials. The ordinance does not take into account

this mixed-use type of development. All variances are a package

and must meet the criteria, which were then considered for (1) size

of ground sign, (2) size of the bank sign, and (3) 84 sq. ft. total

sign package vs. 24. sq. ft. in ordinances:

a) That special circumstances peculiar to the or conditions exist which are applicable to otlhanedr olarndsstructure(s) involved and which are not or structures in the same zoning d2i)stirsicat.muThlteipcleri-uteseriobnuiladpinpglie, sanbde c a(3u)sleig (h1)tsitf'asceo4n a#tecrnoranietyr,lot, 425 not meaxokteues traintaahrllaayrnd* cW te-eo.dmoanSk'eitncaweadnwetectidsooiomnnao.kteTkinhtoewu2n4wwhoatrkathbele sbigQntsawreilclosnaceyr,neitd only sq. ft. ground sign is not landscaapinggro.und sign, it is in the ground and part of the

Mr. Miller said the bank wants a 16 sq.ft. sign mounted on the building below the soffits, but members thought this was too big. It needs to be lowered and consistent with other signs. Agreement

was reached to make the bank sign 6' x2' instead of 8' x2'.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights cammonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. Four businesses would allow 96

sq. ft. Limiting them to 24 sq. ft. would limit w- i*r*the businesses can do.

k«Y,§lr.,

C) That the -special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. Not applicable.

d) That the 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. A planned

development incorporates all these potential businessess, and all

signs must be considered together, not individually.

e) That the 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. No problems have arisen with this criterion.

Therefore, the application meets four of the five criteria

with the bank sign reduced to 12 sq. ft. and placed closer to the

windows. This application is conditional on approval of actual

lettering on signs.

16. Mr. Oney described the lighting package. Their engineer

said it was impossible to do an actual foot candle estimate with

signs pointing down or facing the building. But Mr. Oney thought

it would be 15-20 foot candles. Consensus agreed that the condition

should limit lighting to no more than 20 foot candles on exterior

of building. Mr. Burriss would like to see all dormer windows lit

internally for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Miller said one dormer will

not be lit; others will be lit or have skylights above.

17. Curb radius at entrances shall be 35' with curb extending

4

5

30' past the tangent point.

18.

19.

There will be a bike rack.

3' mounding in front of bank, and with sloping, a flat top, no camels.

Other questions: Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted to revisit the parking, which has been increased to 100 slots, and Mr. Oney said 100 was a compromise from the original 190. Mr. Myers suggested leniency until C.V. planning is determined. Also, there is no street parking available now. Mr. Wernet added that with future

developments, parking lots will "be shared. Mr. Salvage said the

code specifies 88 spaces for this size building, and it' s behind the building and out of sight. This plan is in line with guide- lines for location and amount of parking. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked

that these comments be recorded in the Minutes. Mr. Wernet added

sthpaetciftihees old code specified minimum parking, and the new one maximum. Mr. Reyazi said the parking requirements are specific; they are not changing with the new ordinances. For some

items, GPC is the body to establish standards.

The four reasons for leniency, then, are (1) no on-street parking, (2) sharing of parking lots later, (3) there is a new code, and (4) GPC can set standards.

MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE FOLLOWING

CONDITIONS:

1. CURBS AT ENTRANCES BE 35' RADIUS WITH 30' CURB

EXTENSIONS PAST TANGENT POINT.

2. A 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK BE INSTALLED ALONG C.V.RT/. 16 ROW.

3. THAT THE IMPERMEABLE SURFACES SHALL BE VERIFIED BY

STAFF, COVERAGE NOT TO EXCEED 70 PER CENT OF TOTAL SITE

AREA.

4. THAT THE 16 SQ. FT. BANK SIGN BE LOWERED BELOW THE

EAVE AND REDUCED TO 12 SQ. FT. WITH SOFFIT LIGHTING AND

THAT FINAL SIGNAGE DRAWINGS BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL OF

GPC.

5. THAT THE COMBINATION OF LIGHT SOURCES ON EXTERIOR OF

BUILDING NOT EXCEED 20 FOOT CANDLES.

6. THAT THERE WILL BE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN

APPLICANT AND VILLAGE WITH FULL UNDERSTANDING ABOUT

FUTURE ACCESS TO NEWARK-GRANVILLE ROAD. IT IS

UNDERSTOOD THAT IF AND WHEN ACCESS IS RESTRICTED BY THE

VILLAGE, THE DEVELOPER WILL INSTALL ALL MODIFICATIONS

REQUIRED BY APP:He* NT. ACCESS TO CHERRY VALLEY WILL BE

SHARED, OSS ACCESS EASEMENTS WILL BE SHARED WITH

6

FUTURE BUSINESSES.

7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS SUBJECT IN TO CONDITIONS 5, 6, 13, 17 MR. REYAZI' S LETTER OF FEBRUARY 26, CONDITIONAL UPON APPROVAL OF VILLAGE COUNCIL.

AMPRP.ROSVAELDV.AGE SECONDED THE, MOTION, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

The Finding of Fact will be adopted at the next meeting.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR NEW BUSINESS A, ILKKA ARO) AND B JAMES AND JULIE HOPSON) AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 10: 05 p.m.

Next Meetings: March and April 13

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.