GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 26, 1998
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
Bryan S. Law, 346 East College Street
This application was continued from last meeting. Mr. Law explained that he wants to expand the porch with a 16' x12' addition going north, add new roof consistent with rest of the house, and close in THE carport roof. The neighbor and Mr. Law will work to- gether on a fence, which will match existing fence. The porch will
be on 6x6 posts with footers, and the door is glass. There will be
another fountain in the back. lot coverage will need a variance. MR. MYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION PENDING BZBA APPROVAL FOR LOT COVERAGE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Don and Mary Alice Turner, 226 South Mulberry
The application had been continued until Mr. Turner obtained signature of current owner for approval of changes to replace the cement columns, install a fence, and add a deck. The signature was received.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Bruce Westall, 241 East Maple Street
The application had been continued because GPC felt they did not have sufficient information to consider lt. More details
having been received, tonight Ned Roberts explained the plans further. He described the tie between sections and how the roof
will look. The foundation line will consistently match the line of
the kitchen. The tree will remain, and the driveway will go around
it. The driveway will slope down from the street to a drain and
then level out. The applicant owns the lot to the south.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR GARAGE AND
LAUNDRY ROOM ADDITION AS PROPOSED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,
AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
James and Beth White, 125 West Elm Street
The applicatioanpplicants with to modify their previously approved MR. WILKfEoNrFEaLD3' picket fence to change the height to 3.5'. MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Kristin Darfus, 136 North Prospect Street
Ms. Darfus was absent, and Mr. Reyazi stated that this is an interesting situation because the signs she requests have already bsheoewn installed, and there is a discrepancy between what the records and what has been put up. She wishes to receive approval for three 8. 45 sq. ft window signs, for a total of 25. 35 sq. ft. The
ordinances permit window signs not exceeding 15 per cent of total window area but in no case exceeding 8 sq. ft. for the building. There are also other window signs. Ms. Darfus feels she has only moved signs, but Mr. Reyazi' s records show GPC only granted a variance for an 8 sq. ft sign.
be Members wanted to table the application until Ms. Darfus could present.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Paramount Companies and Michael Menzer, South Galway Drive
Mr. Reyazi said he does not have all the plans necessary to consider the application and he has not had sufficient time to study the plans completely. He could not recommend approval based
otonntihgeht.information he has, but it' s up to GPC whether to continue
Gary McAnally felt he provided what was necessary from Bird and Bull and a lighting layout, and Mr. Menzer stated that this was what was required at the last meeting. However, Mr. Reyazi said
the plans are still not complete, and there has been insufficient time to study the plans and see whether the applicable ordinances have been addressed.
Still needed (12 days before the next meeting) are:
1. Landscape plan
2. Final site plan with elevations
3. Be sure all ordinances have been complied with.
4. Access line-up with Galway
5. Engineering plans with drainage and grading
6. Civil packet
7. Service driveway
8. Future additions and additional parking lot
9. Number of curb cuts
10. Connection to adjacent properties
11. Traffic estimate; traffic control; stop signs
Easement to Galway
Approval of Streets Lighting and Sidewalks Committee for the development and public street lighting plan
the oMptri.onMyers stated that GPC was going to give Village Council that such to get an easement to Fackler' s, and Mr. Wernet added footage foarnopeeansemspeanctew. ould not count against minimum square
road. Mr. Wince said they are not going to give the Village the Mr. Menzer is not interested in interconnecting parking lots, but Mr. Myers said this is required by the code.
Mr. Reyazi would recommend combined curb cuts and adjacent service drive, with access points at either end of the property. It is not the Village' s responsibility to pay for a service road that would serve three commercial properties. 'Mr. Menzer repeated that he is willing to negotiate a ROW but will not pay for the service road nor provide common access through his parking lot. Mr. Menzer said GPC should come to an understanding and a basic interest in his development and be realistic about what will be developed in the community. He does not think it is consistent with the code and he will move his plan elsewhere if GPC insists upon it. He does not want to put his employees at risk. Also, he does not want to put in stop signs. He wants the Village to either
panady tforar ftfhice esatusedmieesn.t or offset it against future road improvement Mr. Myers said the GPC was willing to reduce Dthreiveop. enTshpisaceisrequirement in order to align the road with Donegal unbuildable land. Mr. Menzer held firm to his statements.
Mr. Salvage understands Mr. Menzer' s situation of not wanting interconnections with an office building and a commercial center. However, some kind of connection is appropriate to Fackler' s but he doesn' t see why GPC should require Mr. Menzer to build it. Para- mount' s plans are what he would like to see in that area. If the applicant would agree to provide access easement through the parking lot, this would move forward quickly. Maybe a compromise could be arrived at. He said the applicant was surprised tonight because staff had not had time to review plans. Others thought this should not have been a surprise. Mr. Reyazi said he did accommodate them as best he could, in view of the less than 12-day minimum timeframe he was given, and would prefer to refer applicant to ordinances because he did not want to miss anything.
Mr. Myers said "you can' t piecemeal a review,"and since there
are still drawings we need, we could continue this until next meeting.
Mr. Wernet said this design is what the Comprehensive Review
Committee had in mind and he would hate to see this not happen.
He said a mini development needs a traffic study in order to get a true estimate of use.
MR. MYERS MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION. MR. WILKENFELD
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
I looked up my notes taken I at the meeting of July 1, 1996, and am quoting them pretty much word-for-word for your edification:
it' Mr. Darfus said the sign is adhering to the sign code; s 8 sq. ft. It reflects the name of the business. The
color is outlined in burgundy, with cream; the old sign was silver with black background. This replaces the old sign.
Application needs variance for total sign area for the building and the number of signs total. You can only have
four signs on the whole building, but there are several businesses there. He will repaint the awning. There' s the
sign in the window and the 2 neon signs. The neon signs are in the pizza area. The second sign is in the pick-up area. This is to be in the third window. The new awning will not have any lettering on it; it will duplicate the colors.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE SIGNS AS REQUESTED. MR.
SHULMAN SECONDED. Mr. Stansbury had some question but he
voted yes when he learned that there are two businesses.
There is 30' between all signs. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.