GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 8, 1998
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.
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
Mr. Reyazi said they will need a variance. One window sign
was approved in 1996 and now we are talking about three different
window signs. Each business can have two signs. Mr. Myers asked
Mr. Darfus if he would be willing to remove one window sign in
order to meet the code (two signs per business),and Mr. Darfus
said Yes, although this will be costly. He will still need a
variance for total square footage for building. If we grant a
variance, it would be for the Granville only.
a) That special circumstances peculiar to the land or conditions exist which are applicable to other laonrdsstructure(s) involved and which are not district. Special circumstaonrcesstructures in the same zoning the multiple tenancy. are the size of the building and
b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. The business would not have any signs if ordinance were strictly interpreted. C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Not applicable. The
owner did not build the building.
d) That the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. There are
no similar structures with multiple tenants.
e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the
pvearrsiaonnscer.esiding or working within the vicinity of the proposed Not applicable.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO REMOVE APPLICATION FROM TABLE; MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO SIGNS FOR
TCHRIISTEBRUIAS.INESS, SUBJECT TO THE DISCUSSIdN WE JUST HAD ON THE MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UMANIMOUSLY
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
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
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
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
Traffic control. Mr. Wince said this could not be addressed
until the ROW situation is resolved.
To sum up, the applicant needs to provide:
1. Percentage of permeable surfaces
2. Net leasable area
3. Public-use open space area
Understanding needs clarification or some idea of s future needs
5. Grading plan
6. Lighting plan
7. Sign lighting
8. Traffic-control signs
9. Location of shared curbcut and connection
10. Landscaping plan. Relocate 6 trees and add 6 trees
11. Detention pond should be part of the plan 12. Define ownership issues
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PENDING RECEIPT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Exempted Village School District, 130 N. Granger St.
Mark Nicholas, Project Manager, explained the plans for a 13- space parking lot for employees, including one handicapped spot. A variance is needed for (1) setback, (2) number of spaces, and (3) dimensions of spaces. They have consulted with neighbors and as a result, reduced the number of spaces and moved the spaces to the
west. He showed drawings giving location of three lots on East College Street. They propose a 10' barrier between edge of pavement and property line. Trash dumpster will be screened, and other
landscaping will provide a buffer. The school board would like to
provide 7 more spaces along Granger for meetings.
Mr. Myers reminded GPC that work sessions are not to start after 10 p. m. unless a majority of members agrees to do so. Consensus agreed to continue.}
Bernard Lucko reiterated concerns of the neighbors: (1) No angle parking on Granger and (2) provide adequate buffer. Jim Harf
explained that angle parking was not part of the Board' s discussion;
it in the plans in case the Village wants it.
Robin Bartlett added that her back yard is 15' from the lot
and wants the parking shifted as far west as possible. She prefers
a brick wall as screening. Only four people work in the building
now, with one vacancy, so 13 spaces are more than adequate, espec- ially with parking at the new elementary school. Approval of
application should consider only the day-to-day needs, not the
monthly school board meeting. Mr. Salvage thought 13 spaces would
not be enough for proposed uses for this multipurpose building, but
he will go along with the school board' s compromise.
Marci McCaulay doesn' t think this plan is what the school
board approved. They did not address setback on the side. Again,
she does not want angle parking and insists the lot be as small as
possible with minimum intrusion into the neighborhood. Sally
Hannahs seconded these comments.
Mr. Harf responded that the Board was sensitive to the neighbors'
concerns and originally, wanted the lot flush with the building.
They will limit;hccess to workdays only.
officeM.r. Wilkenfeld stated this is a residential area with an light, People who live there need protection from nuisance, and sound. Screen the area heavily and maybe add a wall or fence. He would like to see the side of Granger look residential and turn the wide sidewalks into more green area, less concrete.
Mr. Burriss is not satisfied with the site plan. What is to be planted is not determined. Landscaping is critical, and he is not sure that mounding would look good. He wondered how the school board will limit access. Mr. Harf said they will investigate a key card system or a chain or something. He is open to suggestions. Mr. Myers cautioned the applicants to seriously consider the disepth of the three lots on College Street. Adding 10' of mounding considerable. He reiterated the issues of concern:
1. Reintroduction of tree lawn and installation of trees 2. Additional detail on landscaping plans
3. Size of plant material for buffer or fence
4. Consider substituting planting for mounding
5. Lighting on the lot; consider wall-mounted, shoebox, light; provide cutsheet; note current street lighting
6. BZBA approval of variances
m7in.imCuomnsider leaving parking spaces 9' x20',vs. the ordinance of 10' x20. Mr. Harf will look into this.
8. No angle parking on Granger Street
9. Sketch of dumpster area
10. Resolve issue of limiting access after hours
Mr. Wilkenfeld stressed the importance of making this plan the best possible design, located as it is in such a busy part of town.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PENBDING RECEIPT OF FURTHER INFORMATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS
At this point Mr. Myers recused himself and put Mr. Salvage in charge}
Thornewood Subdivision, Lots 27, 28, 29 on West Broadway
Mr. Erhard, attorney, brought the group up to date on development
plans for the three steep lots in the TCOD. Originally they
planned three single family homes within 50' of ROW. Now they
would like to place one three- or four-unit dwelling over two lots
and leave the third lot in trees. This would be violating the TCOD
but would permit no curbcuts because access would be from the rear.
Existing trees in front would be undisturbed.
Mr. Hersam added that they changed to cluster housing to
accommodate recommendations from GPC. GPC did not want any
building to take place within the first 50',including sidewalks.
The designers planned three or four two-story 1400 sq. ft. units
with garages and parking in rear. Each roof would be stairstepped
to follow the hill.
Troy Reed reported project that the neighbors have learned of the and wanted to voice their objection with a petition, stressing that the officials should adhere to all regulations. They are opposed to a multipurpose building. Trudi Knox added that any road needs truck access, and there is no way for a truck to exit this driveway. She stated that it' s unfair that some people need driveways and others do not. Mr. Salvage said that the 100' TCOD was instituted to maintain scenic entrances and to minimize curbcuts. He added that the original plan had a road going all the way around. When residents
objected, GPC required them to remove it. GPC thought a single unit would offer the least impact on the village and suggested using the existing driveway with no additional access points on West Broadway. Lots 29 and 30 were to remain greenspace. In February Ken Richards, neighbor to the west, had written a letter, adamantly opposed to granting a variance from the 100' setback because he was denied the same privilege and because of fear of congestion from multifamily dwellings and increased traffic, noise, and trash. Other homes in the area may not be 100' back, but they were built before TCOD was enacted. Consistency
should be assumed from our elected officials.
Tom Sawyer' s concern is about setting precedents here and about his lack of privacy.
Mr. Wilkenfeld feels strongly about the 100' setback, but applicant would have to build on the cliff. When GPC considered
cluster housing in order to preserve open space, condos were not considered. He asked the neighbors which was more upsetting:
cluster houses within 50' of the ROW, separate houses with access to the rear, or would you prefer no housing at all? Mr. Sawyer
said that just because there is vacant land, there does not have to be housing on it. This is an economic matter for two people.
Ms. Knox had read about this plan in the Sentinel, which added
that Mr. Stansbury and others had no objection, but neighbors were not consulted.
Consensus of neighbors appeared to be that they wanted the builders to adhere to the 100' setback. Some lots are not buildable.
Sally Scheiderer stated that an owner has a right to build on his land, but she would prefer to see single-family units. She
would not like to see excessive concrete and stone and this plan
would not fit the style of other houses there now.
Mr. Salvage sees a lot of opposition, but he feels the
proposal is a good idea. The next step is to bring in an
Mr. Erhard said that because of topological problems this
board can reduce the minimum to 50',preserve green space, and stay within the ordinances. Mr. Kobunsky added that they could go back
100' but you would see no trees, and Mr. Salvage stated that GPC is
inclined to want to protect green space.
Mr. Burriss said cluster housing can share a common wall of
trees. One driveway is better than three or four, and it is better
in the rear. It is important to consider consistency of build-to
lines with other buildings in the area. One building is 38' back
and one is 59' with a 6' porch.
Wanda Field over Newark becausceanoufntdheerstand profits but she paid extra taxes trees and the lot. She does not want to lose property value. Mr. Herson said he bought the property in 1970 and because of maintenance and taxes, there is not much profit otof btheregeainloetds.. Based upon setback he is going to go back to the idea
Mr. Richards wants members of the GPC to be considerate of neighbors' feelings. Be consistent for all applicants as well as looking at nearby setbacks.
Mr. Salvage appreciated all comments expressed tonight.
Finding of Fact:
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR DARFUS AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 11: 20 p. m.
Next Meetings: June 22 and July 13