GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 14, 1998
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
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION