Granville Community Calendar

GPC 12/14/98

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.
RespecA{illy submitted
Betty Allen

GPC 09/14/98

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
1
3

GPC 09/28/99

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 10/26/98

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 10/05/98

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
3

GPC 11/30/98

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4

GPC 11/09/98

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 05/26/98

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.
1 1--
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
2
1.
12.
13.
14.
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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4
to:
from:
re:
date:
GPC members

GPC 05/11/98

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
5

GPC 04/30/98

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
March 30, 1998
Minutes
MWeimlkbeenrsfelPdresent: Jack Burriss, Gary Stansbury, Bill Wernet, Carl
Members Absent: Keith Myers, Richard Salvage Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel)
George Fackler, 1960 Newark-Granville Road
This special meeting was called to vote upon the Finding of Fact for Fackler' s application. Mr. Salvage was unable to attend but submitted a couple of concerns, which the group discussed.
GPC did not discuss hours of operation of the drive-through; therefore, it should not be in our Finding of Fact.
At Mr. Hurst' s suggestion, Mr. Reyazi had revised the document to reflect discussions at the March 23 meeting and added a para- graph on Page 3 regarding Village Council' s approval. An extra 7'
ROW was discussed at the meeting of March 23 but not at the March 9 meeting which the Finding of Fact was based upon. Thus the group felt they could not include it in the Finding of Fact since they did not vote on it.
Members agreed to strike the second sentence of Mr. Reyazils underlined paragraph.
There is a typo on Page 1, third bullet, change business to businesses.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT AS AMENDED
AS FORMAL DECISION OF THE BOARD. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Wernet strongly recommends that this group figure out what
the exact parking requirements should be in the ordinances.
Respectfully submitted
Betty Allen

GPC 04/23/98

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. Betty will be absent April 27)
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 06/22/98

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<r > 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 )
EEXNPGAINNDEEFRO' OS TAPRPI-NPRTO1 V1(z- A/.L.j , -4 ) . 6 - 1 , 5 f - - ;/r-f-,4( p/E,CL7o- )
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 COOLdjul
91c' n%1&
4
5
6
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 (Betty may be absent)
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
5

GPC 06/08/98

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 Granvilla only.
4.
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
3
I
4
P4a.ramMeomuonto' f 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.
Ofs»
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.
1
5
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.
6
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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
7

GPC 07/16/98

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 07/27/98

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
3

GPC 01/26/98

:.r:G.·R A*2·V;·ILLE *P: LANI*NG C'·OMMSSION :sl-y':. M *·i.>·.4:' ·rp„la„·
January 26, 1991
Minutes
&.9....e.·.f& 'T··.r·-',
Members Present: Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Bill Wernet, Carl Wilkenfeld. Mr. Wernet was welcomed to GPC as representative from Village Council.
Members Absent: Keith Myers
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel),Mark Zarbaugh, John Thornborough, Bob Hersam, Bob Erhard, Jeff Kobunski
Minutes of December 22, 1997:
Page 1, under Correction of Minutes, add at their own risk after "with a foundation certificate..."
Page 2, about middle of page, change to "re.qu.ir.ement provide ROW and turn lanes..." to
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. SALVAGE SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Old Business:
Bob Evans, Cherry Valley Road
Bob Evans has submitted a final plat for subdivision for approval so that it can be recorded at the County Recorder' s Office
after being signed by the Chair of GPC and approved by the Village.
There was a question of insufficient time for consideration of this plat, the mylar of whieh was received last Friday. Although
approval has already been granted and consideration tonight is
mostly administrative, members thought it should be tabled until the next meeting in order to adhere to ordinance requirements. It
is important that all changes required by the preliminary plat be included in the final plat.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING TO BE
SURE THAT ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMISSION PERIODS ARE MET, AND
WE THAT WE HAVE WRITTEN FINDING FROM STAFF AS TO COMPLETENESS
OF PLAT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Denison University, Sunset Hill
Mr. Reyazi said that Denison has requested a waiver of public
use fee for their new residence halls. GPC discussed this at their
last meeting and agreed that a waiver would be appropriate. The
Ordinance suggests {1305. 03( f)} L a"nd Dedication in Lieu of Fee, 1'
and Mr. Wernet suggested asking them to dedicate the development
rights f6r Middleton House and the Bio Reserve to balance the fee.
Mr. Reyazi thought this might be complicated and he had told them
he would not hold up the certificate. He would be concerned about
precedent·settingr.M. r,i,-Salvage- thought t"hs*"w'ouldfa- ti<outside't-he-* scope of this body.
No consensus was arrived at for a recommendation to Village dCeoduinccaitli,onbut Mr. Wernet would like Denison to consider the land in lieu of fee. This could be sent to VC without trheecomfemee. ndation in order that they consider all options regarding
MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT WHILE RECOGNIZING THE VALIDITY OF THE DENISON REQUEST TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC USE FEE, GPC BELIEVES THAT VILLAGE COUNCIL SHOULD LOOK AT ALL ALTERNATIVES AND THEREFORE GPC MOVES TO FORWARD TO VILLAGE COUNCIL THE DENISON REQUEST WITHOUT SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
Borough Company, John Thornborough, Shepardson Court
The original application for subdivision without plat (lot split) was approved March 20, 1995, but was not recorded within 60 days of approval, thus the approval was voided. They are now asking for approval of the same lot split that was previously approved. The plan would resubdivide six small lots into three
larger lots, providing more greenspace. The proposal meets all
requirements, and water and sewer is available.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED; MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Thornewood Subdivision, Lots 27, 28, 29, West Broadway
Mr. Hersam and Mr. Kobunski explained their new proposed cluster housing for the three lots. Mr. Hersam explained that
although this fronts in the TCOD, the hill in the back precludes
construction any farther to the rear and they feel that 50' setback
is the best they can do. They have seriously considered cluster
housing for 4 condos and find that it would work by merging the ef /St- lots. They propose a single curbcut, a=s-i-rb*e/d\riveway wd:6· 49- e ' another drive in back of the units facing into the hill. They
would build a retaining wall and retain much of the woods. This 31-1 would require a rezoning to Suburban C or PUD. It would retain
greenspace in lieu of a short setback in the TCOD.
This will be on the agenda again at
Consensus agreed it appears to be a good plan.
the next meeting.
Access Management Plan
Mr. Reyazi and Mr. Zarbaugh again talked about the proposed
Access Management Plan, saying the classification system is consistent
with the Licking County plan for roads.
C
whereMr. Salvage was concerned with imposing new rules in areas they are not applicable or not needed. He suggested making the classification system as an overlay district where need exists. As areas annex, those areas can fall under the overlay district. Other areas can be reclassified as rdquired.
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked about sidewalks, and Mr. Zarbaugh said tshyasttemp.edestrian walkways are included in mobile transportation sidewalk. There are funds available to help a homeowner to put in a Some streets are too narrow for sidewalks.
an ovMerrl.ayWedrinsettriwcotu.ld recommend the marking the historic village as
Members were concerned about premature road widening, and Mr. Zarbaugh assured members that no changes were planned for now. There must be a major change in trip generation for the road to be widened. Under an Access Management plan, all roads are classified whether or not they will be actually built at some future date.
Mr. Reyazi said there are two main aspects of Access Manage- 1) Limit curbcuts and (2) Protect ROW for possible road
ment:
development.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said we can call them by the same classifi- cation*as Licking County does but use different standards.
Finding of Eact:
,
MR. M- ii*S *MOVED TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR DENISON UNIVERSITY AND THE APPLICATION FOR THE BOROUGH COMPANY AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND FINDING
OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 9: 15 p. m.
Next Meetings: February 9 and 23
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
3.

GPC 12/28/98

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.
December 28,1998
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 12/14/98

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.
RespecA{illy submitted
Betty Allen

GPC 04/27/98

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen (transcribed from tape

GPC 04/13/98

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.
27)
Betty will be absent April
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.