Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes 12/13/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 13,1999

Minutes

DRAFT

Members Present:Jack Burriss,Bernie Lukco,Richard Salvage,Bill Wernet,Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent: Keith Myers ( Chair)

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present:Scott Rawdon SentinelL),uAnn M. Duffus,Paul and Teri Campbell,Larry

Parr,Brenda Mix,Rodger Asmus,C. K. Barsky,Dean and Irene Mullins,Jim Mews,Bob Kent,

Robert O'Neill,Jim Crates,Greg Ross,Laura Andujar,Susan Hamann,Roy Ran,Ms. Macleod,

Cy Villars,Dick and Carolyn Fetter,Michele Brogan

Call to Order: Vice Chair Carl Wilkenfeld called the meeting to order.

The Vice Chairman swore in all those who planned to speak.)

Minutes of November 22,1999:

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE M[NUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. BURRISS

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of December 6,1999:

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. BURRISS

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Citizen's Comments: Constance Barsky has some aesthetic concerns about the renovation of

the Village building: ( 1)She would suggest taking another look at the rooftine and wondered

whether a pediment is really needed; she believes pediments call out for columns. A roofline

defines character,and the pediment would create a visual inconsistency with the rest ofthe

building. 2( )She thinks it would be advantageous and an aesthetically pleasing combination for

the color of the awning to be of a warm color. The existing brick is warm colored.

Old Business:

Maple Grove Cemetery - Point of clarification of approvalfor fence project associated with

cemetery expansion

Ms. Wimberger noted that the fence which the Trustees installed is 6' high; however,if

one measures from one low spot on the ground, it measures in excess of 7'.The ordinance states

that height of a fence is measured from an average grade. There have also been some concerns

raised about the aesthetics of the fencing and the barbed wire. GPC is asked to review what was

built and what was approved and determine consistency.

Jim Havens,representing the Township Board of Trustees,showed purchase orders for

landscaping and 5' chainlink fencing with an additional l' of barbed wire. The fencing was

installed in accordance with what was approved and is exactly like the pre-existing fence and is

GPC Minutes December 13, 1999

identical to the fence around the sewer treatment plant. He recognizes that barbed people do not like wire but it is essential to prevent vandalism. The Township has installed some ofthe landscaping. He said that at some points the fence is higher because of a dip in the topography

and at some points it is lower. But he believes on average it is 6'.Spoils will be used to fill

indentations,and more landscaping will be added. There has been no vandalism in the older section because ofthe fence.

Mr. Lukco thought it was aesthetically unattractive and there is a gap in one place where

anyone could enter. He would like to make the community a better place with a feeling of

security without giving an impression of a police statea-c-ommunity both safe and attractive. A lot of landscaping is required.

Mr. Havens said the fence should oxidize for two years before being painted the dark

green as promised.

Jim Crates,neighbor on the north,has three concerns: 1( )Mr. Havens has addressed the

color issue;2 ()heightth--e fence is over 7' at one point behind his house, although he understands

the issue ofthe average grade;3 ()the barbed wire is wholly unattractive and as it abuts residential

property it is unnecessary and overreacting. Vandals will not be going so close to houses to do

their mischief. He added that a lot of homes on Maple surrounding the cemetery are rental

properties,and landlords are not really as concerned as a homeowner would be.

Susan Hamann neighbor on the west, has spent a lot of money making her property

attractive and thinks the chainlink fence is hideous in her back yard. Good neighbors are not

made by barbed wire fences. She is worried about devaluation of her home and others in the

neighborhood.

Sue Barton,neighbor on the west,had a beautiful view from her deck before the fence

was put in and fears that her property is devalued now. The fence was supposed to be 10' behind

her property but iS Obly 2'from the property line. The fence is climbable. Only 8 little plants

have been planted, and it will take 2-4 years for them to grow anywhere near 5' high. Mr. Havens

stated that more will be planted;the fence is significantly below the Barton house. Ms. Barton

stated that the barbed wire at Art Morrow's home ( on Mt. Parnassus Drive)is facing inward, and

she prefers that set-up. She said she talked with Norm Kennedy about the direction the barbed

wire would face, and he indicated it could be turned toward the cemetery where her property

meets it.

Ms. Wimberger reminded the GPC that their charge it to assure that the fence was built

according to approved plans. Under Section 1187.03(5)barbed wire is prohibited and ifGPC

agrees, it is appropriate for such discussion to go to BZBA for a variance. BZBA's approval was

for a conditional use, not a barbed wire fence. It would be appropriate to make such a motion.

Mr. Lukco stated that the minutes specify mixed shrubs and trees. That will help,but this

should be a condition on all four sides.

Mr. Wernet asked about the homeowner at the northeast corner, and Mr. Havens said the

fence is 10' back. The cemetery is in a low area. He has heard nothing from the homeowner.

a

2

GPC Minutes December 13, 1999

Mr. Wernet asked whether it would be feasible to have a wrought iron fence there similar to the

entry gate. Mr. Havens said they would consider this.

Mr. Salvage recommended that Mr. Havens meet with neighbors to try to work out their

concerns.

Mr. Burriss raised the color concern: the fence was to have been painted dark green

immediately. Mr. Havens replied that he did not realize at the time of application that the fencing

needs to oxidize for two years,but he will have it painted if requested although it will deteriorate.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT GPC HAS FOUND NO DEVIATION BY THE

TOWNSHIP FROM THE APPROVED APPLICATION. MR. LUKCO SECONDED,

AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Sessions:

The Colony at Bryn Du,Robert Kent

Mr. Kent is seeking assistance as he make plans for Phase IV of his development. It contains

some minor modifications from the previously approved plan. Southgate Corp. will develop the

42 lots in cluster housing form. The points of change are: 1( )size of the singlef-amily homes

originally was 2400 sq.ft,but they are asking for 1580-1940; 2 ()eliminate connector road to

Glyn Tawel; 3()make streets 24' wide instead of28'w, ith 32 as apron at entranceway.

Mr. Lukco asked about green space,and Mr. Kent clarified that there will be many acres

in addition to the space in the center ofthe ovals.

Robert O'Neill, developer from Southgate Corp.,said that his company built Stonehouse

Court and the new homes will resemble those. Many Granville people have expressed interest in

such a development in Granville.

Larry Parr showed drawings of the three proposed homes and plan. The homes will be

one floor with optional loft, 2 bedrooms, screen porch,stone/ wood,hip roof,2-car garages,

basements,lots of windows and dormers. Cultured stone will be used on the exterior. These are

not condos but are individually owned,on individual lots, and maintenance is by the home

owners association. Access to garages is via a shared driveway for every two houses. The

garage doors will face sideways. There will be sidewalks and a courtyard with lighting. There

will be about 12 gas streetlights,like those in Bryn Du Woods. There will be a landscaping plan.

Two off-street parking spaces are planned for each house in addition to parking on one side of the

street.

Mr. Burl-iss wants to avoid joint mailboxes, so that each house has its own box.

Neighbor Bill York had some concerns: ( 1)he does not want a connecting road to Bryn

Du Woods;2 ()the project was shifted slightly and has been moved back to Bryn Du Woods,but

3

GPC Minutes December 13, 1999

that was an earlier concern3; ()he does not want to see parking pads in the back yards and he does not want off-street parking in the rear.

Cheryl. Mullins,Lot 119,said his house is very close,and Mr.O'Neill said there is approximately 350' from the rear ofthe house to the back ofthe Mullins house.

Paul Campbell asked what type of main entrance is planned,and Mr. O'Neill said there is a 100' setback from ROW on NewarkG- ranville Road with a structural entry feature with a low- key sign sayingT "he Colony at BrynDu,lo"cated inside the development. They plan to have discreet indicator sign along NewarkG- ranville Road for directional a asked about the detention pond because the purposes. Mr. Campbell neglected oflate. one at the main entrance seems to have been

Brenda Mix lives across from the entrance and does not want to be able to look into

kitchens from the road. Mr.Kent said there is an open field a(t least 100' from the ROW)and Mr. Parr added that living rooms are in the back and there will be landscaping.

Mr. Kent said the existing trees will be moved.

LisaMcIi

asked Ms. Wimberger to note that she was not in favor of "patio homes"and does not want it to look like Phoenix. She would prefer two-story Victorian type homes,which are more appropriate from the entrance to Granville. Mr. Parr said they are not creating patio homes. The

design criteria would not work with Victorian homes. There will be very little impact on village services for these empty-nester homes.

LuAnn Duffus is president ofthe homeowners association and her group wants to eliminate access to Glyn Tawel Dnve.

Cary Campbell would hate to see a second developer take over in case of failure of the

first developer. She saw this happen in another community where the quality of the product is no longer there. Mr. Kent assured her the planners live in Granville and the development has already

been approved and they are not going to bow out. 4244KA>

developCeronsensus of the group believes the plans to be god-T«hey appreciate the efforts of the to obtain and try to accommodate community input. They want to see elevations and

covenants; to'be assured that emergency vehicles can maneuver there. They want Keith Myers

Chairman, not in attendance this evening)to view the plans.

IGA,484 South Main Street - renovations

Greg Ross explained that the store needs more room and they plan to remodel the front

and back facades. They are limited in expansion room by the creek, utility access, and roadway.

They are presenting two proposals, one. for one story and one for two stories to the rear of the

4

GPC Minutes December 13, 1999

building. GPC members had some suggestions for assisting in his planning process.

Ms. Wimberger said they will probably need variances for square footage and parking as

well as some other standards. Consensus was in favor ofupgrading the store and look forward to

seeing elevations. Another work session was recommended,at which Keith Myers would be

present. R. Burriss thought that the rear and side do not have to be beautiful,but neat.

Dick Fetter,Fetter Electrical Contractors,80 Westgate Drive

Mr. Fetter explained they wish to purchase the Knoll Group building property and to build

an additional building on the side for his office and business. They want to extend the parking lot

in order to direct rainwater off. The building would be 42'x114',wood frame,metal covered

building on a slab, looking like the next building. They need three overhead doors and passage

doors. Mrs. Fetter wants to begin a horse treats-bakery on one side,and members recommended

she consult with Mr. Hurst,Law Director.

Ms. Wimberger said the Tree and Landscape Committee should look at the plan,and all

other conditions in the code must be followed.

Mr. Lukco said good landscaping needs to be added to such a plain building.

Consensus agreed this was a good plan.

Finding of Fact:none

Next Meetings: January 10 ( Mr. Lukco will be absent)and January 24. NO MEETING ON

DECEMBER 27.

Adjournment: 11: 15 p.m.

GPC Minutes 12/6/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 6,1999

Minutes

Members Present:Keith Myers C( hairR),ichard Salvage,Bernie Lukco

Members Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld,Bill Wernet,Jack Burriss

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Greg Ream,Rodger Kessler,Scott Rawdon S(entinel)G,ary Stansbury

Called to order: 7. 30 p.m.

Citizens'Comments: none

Old Business:

Chapter 1189 -Signs

Mr. Myers noted that one ofthe key intentions ofrewriting the sign code was to address

the different areas ofthe Village. The current sign code is difficult to apply everywhere

even anywhere).The draft out now is the most recent. Hopefully this meeting tonight

will help the Commission gather public comment on the code. Then the commission will

forward the revised code to Village Council for approval.

Gary Stansbury asked for some clarifications on some sections in the code. In

particular,he asked what the abbreviations meanti .(e.:VRD=Village Residential

District). Ms. Wimberger and Mr. Lukco noted that defining the zoning districts in the

definitions section would be suitable.

Greg Ream asked what the sign dimensions were possible under this new code in

the VBD ( Village Business District).On page 5, there needs to be a clarification ofthe

allowable square footage under general provisionsf o(r all zoning districts)that the 2.5

lineal feet +25%for the second street frontage. It should read 2.5 square feet per lineal

foot +25%for the second street frontage. Mr. Ream wondered why someone on the

corner would be privileged to get so much signage. He thought there was not enough

latitude in the code for businesses to maintain their charm and different type and styles of

signs.

It was noted that the temporary signs2 (square feet)is too small to cover what

most temporary signs might be.

A question about the maintenance of signs p(articularly grandfathered signsw) ould

not be able to be maintained under the new code. Mr. Myers an Mr. Lukco noted that the

intent ofthe code is to allow proper maintenance on a sign,not to punish. They hope that

the flexibility has not changed from the existing code. Hopefully the new code will help

maintain the character ofthe Village. Mr. Ream said line 34 of 1189.15 ofthe new code

GPC Minutes;November 1, 1999

leads him to understand that repair and maintenance of nonconforming signs is impossible.

Mr. Kessler said the ORC 1860 says that any sign that currently exists legally is

grandfathered. Thius sort oflanguage could be used when this code is passed.

Mr. Stansbury wondered about the thought process for developing the new

standards,was it orientated to the pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The Commission noted

that in the outlying commercial districts, the speed of the vehicular traffic was taken into

account.

It was determined that additional definitions were necessary to clarify and make

the code more understandable. In particular,Mr. Ream was concerned about the

insurance labels he is required to post in his window for the pharmacy. The commission

thought that a good name for these signs might be customer convenience signs. These

signs would be exempt from permits.

Mr. Kessler noted that wall signs need to be atleast 12 inches deep rather than 6

inches, to accommodate internally lit signs. The Commission thought that internally lit

signs might be included in CSD, SBD,PCD ifthe other commission members thought it

appropriate w(ho were not in attendance).

All parties present thought the code was a great improvement over the existing

code. Many thanks to all who helped in the process.

The sign code committee adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

GPC Minutes 11/22/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 22,1999

Minutes

Members Present: Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers C( hair)R,ichard Salvage,Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent: Jack Burriss,Bill Wernet

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon SentineD,Peter Cea,Jim Ormond,Keith Keegan,Dave Black,

Troy Butler,Ed Meurer,Tom Mellott,Father Michael Gribble,Frits Rizor,George Fackler, Julie

Hopson

Citizen's Comments: none

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.)

Minutes of November 8,1999:

MR. LUCKO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. SALVAGE

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Sprint PCS at Presbyterian Church,110 West Broaciwity - Antenna

Ms. Wimberger stated that Sprint wishes to extend a rod from the church steeple for their

microcell antenna. The only portion to be seen from the outside is a small rod.

Peter Cea showed the digital photographs and said the microcell will handle just the

downtown area. The system will be totally internal except for the 6' high antenna. The color will

be white to match the steeple, and it will not be lit. The Village Law Director is reviewing the

village's portion of the agreement th( e village owns the land,the church owns the building).The

church has already approved the use oftheir building. Additionally,the BZBA approved the

height variance on November 18, 1999.

Sprint PCS originally wanted to have the complete system internal,but the foliage,now

and in the future,necessitated more height.

1159.01, Purpose,OK

1159.03, Standards. Met

1159,05(b)5,6,7, Approval procedure. OK

1161. 02, Application. OK

1161. 05, Criteria. OK

1191.04(2).It was determined OK to use the antenna as an accessory use to the principal use of

the property.

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

WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

4# 4/-

JulieJ a&mes Hopson, 123 SouthPearl G- arage

GPC Minutes November 22, 1999

Ms. Wimberger explained that there are two applications here: ( 1)demolition ofthe old,

small garage and ( 2)build a new 24'x29' cedar garage.

The second curbcut has been removed. The BZBA approved the setback variances on

Nov. 18. The driveway would have to be widened at least at garage entrance. The two north

windows would have shutters,the others would not.

Ms. Hopson said there will be an overhang for woodshed on the south side of the garage,

and the garage will be painted to match the house.

Members addressed applicable sections of the code.

1159.01, Purpose. OK

1159.03, Standards. Met

1159.05(b)5,6,7, Approval procedure. OK

1161.02,AROD application. OK

1161.05, Criteria. OK

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 99140 FOR

DEMOLITION OF THE GARAGE. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 99140 FOR

CONSTRUCTION OF THE GARAGE. MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

St.Edwards Catholic Church,785 NewarkG-ranville Road L-ot Split

Ms. Wimberger explained that the church owns a historical house at 865 Newark-

Granville Road, which they would like to sell. The new property, at the road,would be 2.593

acres of the original 10. The church will keep the remaining 7+acres located to the rear ofthe

house as part ofthe entire property that they own.

Mr. Mellott explained that the house is not necessary for the church's use, and a lot split

would allow the church to sell the house. The tree lawn along the parking lot on the west side of

the house will belong to the new house property.

Members considered the applicable portions ofthe code:

1163.01, Purpose,OK

1163.02,Uses,OK

1113.02, Subdivision without plat,OK

1176, TCOD,OK

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 99145 FOR LOT SPLIT FOR THE

CHURCH. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

2

pl..

GPC Minutes November 22,1999

George H.Fackler III,Fackler Country Gardens,2326NewarkG-ranville Road R-emodeling

Ms. Wimberger stated that the applicant wants to renovate and improve the property.

There are two propertiesth-e- stove store and the garden center. Part ofthe property is in the

TCOD ( Newark- Granville Road).She also reminded the commission ofthe memo they received

from the Service Director,Mark Zarbaugh. The memo addressed some concerns and comments

he had regarding the sidewalk,tree lawn,and improvements to Cherry Valley Road.

Mr.Fackler said he has a historical scrapbook about his business over the last 15 years.

He has a lot to offer the community and is proud ofhis business and wants to continue it.

Frits Rizor showed a drawing and explained their plans:

Clean up the entire site

Make traffic flow and parking more efficient and add 9 parking spaces

Make a nice shopping area

Add a plexiglass greenhouse facing Cherry Valley Road

Paver display for sale ofplants

Lath structure will be left intact but improved

Surround the property with 52"4-rail white fence in the " new Albany"style

Move existing fence,now in ROW,out to put everything inside fence

Add street trees

Add sidewalk

Trees across the street would be transplanted

Add walkways in front of stove shop

Provide landscaping demonstrations in the front area

Make new stone storage area with buffer fence

Add 6' privacy fence in center part with 7' arborvitae 3' center to center

Add evergreens for screening

Add concrete apron in front

Mulch storage will be reconfigured with evergreen screening

Remove old fence. Add gate for night security

Remove Norway spruce and replace with deciduous and flowering trees

Burlapped trees for sale will act as buffer on Cherry Valley

Troy Butler,neighbor said his concerns are the fence, the evergreen screening,and the dumpster.

Mr. Rizor said the dumpster has not been addressed, and Mr. Myers asked for an 8' screening

fence,which Mr. Rizor thought would be acceptable.

Mr. Myers asked for clarification of position ofR.O.W.

Mr. Zarbaugh's memo commented that (1)at such time as Cherry Valley is improved,

improvements considered today may have to be changed. 2( )15' sidewalks and 6' tree lawns

would be required when Cherry Valley is improved. Mr. Fackler would have to be willing to

grant the Village additional ROW at that time. Mr. Fackler recognizes this possibility. 3 ( )Mr.

Zarbaugh would like the Village Engineer to receive a set of plans.

3

GPC Minutes November 22, 1999

Mr. Salvage thought Mr. Fackler was apparently considering a fence outside the ROW

No signage is considered at this time.

Mr. Wilkenfeld seeks assurance that parking will be screened from the road,and Mr.

Rizor said there will be crab apples,blue spruces,and 4' yews. He stated that adding more buffer

trees in front of the sale trees with detract from the ability of sale trees to grow straight.

Mr. Rizor said there has to be a wide curbcut for semi trucks to enter and make deliveries.

Egress on Cherry Valley is not wide enough for semis.

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 99145 FOR FACKLER'S

COUNTRY GARDENS WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS

That the privacy fence on east property line be raised from 6 to 8' on center and enclose

dumpster area

Install evergreens along same property line be emerald green arborvitae 7' high 3' on center

taxus hedge 3' on center on north property line to screen parking from Newark-Granville

Road

Proposed sidewalk on Newark-Granville Road be installed connecting sidewalk to the west

sidewalk in place

Applicant understands that the fencing will need to be relocated or removed when

improvements to Cherry Valley are instituted.

Drawing of a wood gate matching fence design be submitted to Village Planner for her

approval.

MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Members applied the application to the code:

1175.01, Purpose -OK

1175.03, Development standards -OK with conditions listed above

1175.04,Plan approval -OK

1176.01, TCOD Interpretation -OK

1176.02,Purpose -OK with understanding listed above

1176.04, Development Standards -OK with conditions listed above

Closing Comments: -

A. Mr. Lukco asked for an update on hiring someone to assist Ms. Wimberger in her duties,

and Ms. Wimberger described alterations in current personnel position descriptions to

accommodate the required duties. The Newark Code Department will expand their inspections

in the village for structural, electrical, etc. on additions and accessory structures. Local

contractors already know these requirements because the rest of the county utilizes them.

Mr. Lukco requested a quarterly update on applications we have approved.

4

GPC Minutes November 22,1999

B. Mr. Lukco also wondered what task our group should be undertaken now that the Sign

Code is just about finished. Ms. Wimberger said she would look into this.

Finding of Fact:

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

NEW BUSINESS ( Sprint,Hopson,Fackler, Catholic Church)AS FORMAL DECISION

OF THE COMMISSION. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings: December 13, CONSENSUS AGREED TO HAVE NO MEETING ON

DECEMBER 27.

Sign Code Meetings: December 6

Adjournment: 9:50 p.m.

GPC Minutes 11/8/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 8,1999

Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss,Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers C( hair)R,ichard Salvage,

Members Absent: Bill Wernet,Carl Wilkenfeld

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon SentineD,Roy Hume,Tina Washka

Citizen's Comments: none

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak)

Minutes of October 18,1999:

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

BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of November 1, 1999:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED;MR. LUKCO

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

First Baptist Church,61 West Broadway - light

Ms. Wimberger stated that the Cooperative Pre-School wishes a security light to be

installed on the back of the church,to go off if someone enters the play area. Tina Washka added

that there has been some vandalism,which was reported to the police. The neighbors have

expressed no problem with the light.

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

LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bank One, 136 East Broadway - awning sign

Ms. Wimberger explained that the applicants wish a replacement sign which is smaller than

the old sign. The vertical facade ofthe awning is larger to accommodate the location ofthe

signing on the facade. Roy Hume stated that the person who was to prepare paperwork resigned

and his replacement assumed the preparation was done,and the new awning was installed. So the

Bank is applying after the fact at this time.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 99135 AS PRESENTED.

MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNAN[ MOUSLY APPROVED.

Superior Land Title Agency,136 South Main -sign,99143

The new business has a sign they wish to install within the existing ground-sign frame on

the Elm Street side. A second sign will go on the door on the second floor. This is a modification

because this was not approved at the time the other sign was approved at the last meeting.

Karen Axline said the sign by the door is being made by the same sign company as the

former sign. It will have gray background to match the building with black letters.

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE 99143 WITH COLORS TO BE GRAY AND

BLACK. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

New Business:

Village ofGranville,Office Building 141 East Broadway P-hase II

Ms. Wimberger stated that the project will be in three phases rather than two. Phase I was

the approved roof and fencing atop. In this phase,applicants are seeking approval for

1)awnings;2 ()material for area above first floor windows;and 3( )two front'door light fixtures.

1)The awning would stretch across the entire length ofthe front facade. They also

would like awning at the police door and the back door for aesthetics and shelter. The awning

would be burgundy canvas with 5' drop and 5' projection. Mr. Burriss asked whether it would be

possible to have a striped material,but Ms. Wimberger said that striped awnings are more of a

carnival style,mostly white with a thinner colored stripe. She said the center part of the awning

could be removed later. This would be a year-round awning which does not close up. The top of

the awning is to be below the brick detail ledge. An apron would be desirable.

Mr. Lukco thought a 68' awning would be too big. He would prefer the awning on either

side ofthe door,leaving the center part open. Mr. Myers likes awning over the door for shelter.

Mr. Burriss suggested a pediment over the door and leave the side windows open with three bays

on each side with 8"apron. Mr. Burriss suggested a piping seam to relieve the solid color.

Members redrew the application for awnings for a more appropriate design E(xhibit I).

2)Lights would be at either side of front door. Ms. Wimberger showed samples,and the

group agreed upon WF45VE base ( wall mount)and 9830 clear poly, 150 watt fixture.

3)Members preferred the use of brick as fill to match as c16sely as possible the existing

structure.

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE EXHIBIT I AS REDRAWN AWNING FOR THE

VILLAGE BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS:

1)TWO AWNINGS,THREE BAYS IN LENGTH, AND ONE PEDIMENT

AWNING OVER THE DOOR AND ONE PEDIMENT AWNING OVER THE POLICE

DOOR AND ONE OVER THE BACK DOOR ( 5 AWN[ NGS TOTAL)

2)TWO LIGHT FIXTURES ONE ON EITHER SIDE OF FRONT DOOR ( SEE

EXHIBIT I)

1 GPC Minutes November 8, 1999

2

GPC Minutes November 8, 1999

3)BUILDING TO BE FILLED IN WITH BRICK TO MATCH BUILDING AS

CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.

4)ON THE AWNING,IF AVAILABLE,ADD TAN PIPING AND

PINSTRIPES

5)COLORS AND STYLE OF AWNING AND LIGHT FIXTURES BE

APPROVED BY STAFF WITH JACK BURRISS AS CONSULTANT

REPRESENTING GPC.

MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR A B, C,and D UNDER

NEW BUSINESS ( Baptist Church,Bank One,Village of Granville,Superior Land Title).

AS FORMAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION. MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings: November 22 and December 13

Sign Code Meetings: December 6

Adjournment: 8:25 p.m.

GPC Minutes 11/1/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 1, 1999

Minutes

JMaeckmBbuerrrsisPs resent:Keith Myers C( hairR),ichard Salvage,Bernie Lukco,Bill Wernet,

Members Absent:Carl Wilkenfeld

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: none

Called to order: 7:30 p.m.

Citizens'Comments: none

Old Business:

Chapter 1189 - Signs

Before beginning,Mr. Salvage made some comments. He wanted to note that everyone has worked very hard on the revision of the sign code. Before Council reviews the

document,however,he would like to see other entities,specifically those businesses and

the GBPA involved. He proposes that the code is sent to or made available to sign vendors and the GBPA for review.

Mr. Wernet said he talked with Roger Kessler ofKessler Sign Company and said he would give a copy to Mr. Kessler.

Mr. Myers said we shouldn't single out any particular vendor,so as to not imply favoritism.

Mr. Burriss noted that the meetings have been public all along. Notices have been

posted and anyone is welcome to attend. So the vendors have had an opportunity to raise their concerns.

Mr. Lucko suggested a notice be placed in the paper for one final meeting. Copies

ofthe code could be available in the Library and the Village Offices.

Mr. Burriss said since he is on the Board of Directors for the GBPA,he would be

glad to take a copy to the GBPA.

It was then noted that this outreach should not be characterized as we have drafted

the code and now want approval by the interested parties. The intent of the document

should be stressed as it was intended to be user-friendly with lessor restrictions.

Additionally,the permissible signage has been increased in many areas.

The format of the meeting will be a open to the public meeting to review the

revised sign code draft. The GPC will take comment and ask questions. Drafts of the

code will be available in the Library and the Village Offices. The copies will be numbered

and those desiring to review the code will be asked to sign out a copy,so that GPC knows

that some parties were reached. The code will be available for a minimum of two weeks.

A press release will be released noting the meeting agenda and the date ( December 6,

1999, 7:30 p.m.).

1

GPC Minutes;November 1, 1999

The Law Director's review of the code will be requested prior to the special

meeting on December 6.

The Commission then discussed the draft dated 10/ 26/ 99. Revisions were made which

will be incorporated into the draft that will be reviewed at the special meeting on

December 6, 1999.

The sign code committee adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

GPC Minutes 10/18/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 18,1999

Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss,Keith Myers C( hairR),ichard Salvage,Bill Wernet,

Members Absent: Bernie Lukco,Carl Wilkenfeld

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon SentineD,Larry Miller,Jill Roberts,Larry Harer

Citizen's Comments: none

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak)

Minutes of August 16,1999:

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

BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of October 4,1999:

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

BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Everen Securities,527 NewarkG-ranville Road S-ign

Ms. Wimberger stated that this application will be considered a modification from an

incomplete one submitted in September. Because of a name change to First Union,Mr. Miller is

requesting a new sign incorporating the new name as well as that ofMoundbuilders Real Estate,a

new tenant. The sign will replace the existing ground sign. They request a second identical sign

to be hung on the deck at the rear of the building,between the floor and the railing. The one in

the rear will not be visible to the street.

Mr. Myers felt that the sign was too high and would rather see it lowered by 2'- 4'.

Procedurally,Mr. Myers stated,we have (1)one modified application. The original

application did have two signs on it,but was incomplete. 2 ( )Mr.Miller is not the owner of the

building;Bob Kent is,but he gave Mr.Miller approval to proceed with the sign applications.3 ()

Is this a major modification. 4 ( )There is no application for the wall sign in the rear.

Mr. Burriss questioned the style ofthe sign,saying the two businesses should be similar in

graphics. Mr. Miller will consult with his sign maker to coordinate the signs. Mr. Burriss prefers

both backgrounds to be green,and Mr. Wernet suggested elongating the word " Securities"for

consistency.

Mr. Salvage is willing to approve application as long as the Village Planner approves the

redesigned sign.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT BOTH THIS APPLICATION,99113,AND THE ONE

SUBMITTED IN SEPTEMBER BE MERGED INTO A SINGLE APPLICATION

WITH CORRECTION NOTING ROBERT KENT AS OWNER AND THE NUMBER

GPC Minutes,October 18, 1999

OF SIGNS CHANGED TO TWO. MR.BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR.SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 99113 SUBJECT TO THE

FOLLOWINGCONDITIONS: 1 ()BACKGROUND COLORFORBOTH SIGNS TO

BE GREEN AS PRESENTED2; ()OVERALL HEIGHT OF FRONT YARD SIGNBE

LOWERED BY2'4-';3 )(THE SECOND SIGN TO BE MOUNTED ON THE DECK

RAILING ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING;4 ()IF APPLICANTWISHES TO

MAKE A MINOR CHANGE IN GRAPHICS,THE VILLAGE PLANNER CAN

APPROVE IT. MR.BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Jill Roberts and other tenants,110 East Elm -Signs

Ms.Wimberger explained that a sign package for the commercial buildings was approved

a few years ago which allowed three signs on one pole and two on the other. Plaques were to go

near the doors.There are three applications before us. Ms.Roberts added that these are new

designs and the additional sign is on her door. The sign that would go on the door is not going to

actually increase the overall signage for the building because some ofthe other signs are not being

used.

1)The first sign application,99123,is for a two-sided ground sign in the existing frame on the

east,including the Sentinel sign on the side wall. The Sentinel sign will be moved next to their

door. Mr.Myers preferred the background colors to be the same,but Ms.Roberts likes them as

the application shows,with muted colors. She will not try to match the old,worn out Curtis sign.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 99123 AS PRESENTED.

MR.BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

2)Application 99127 is for a white-lettered door sign for Jill Roberts. She said it would be the

same logo but smaller letters, with address,phone number,and email added.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE 99127 AS SUBMITTED. MR. BURRISS

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

3)Application 99128 is for a ground sign for Superior Land Title and wall signs

plaques)to be installed next to the second floor two doors for Superior Land Title S(. Main St.

buildinga)nd Ruth Garrett e(ast building).

Mr. Wernet does not get a sense ofconsistency among all the signs. While Ruth Garrett's

wall sign is appropriate,Superior Land Title has two quite different styles.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE 99128 WITH CONDITION THAT

APPROVAL ONLY RELATES TO RUTH GARRETT'S WALL PLAQUE SIGN. MR.

BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

2

Granville Goodyear,Larry Harer,200 East Broadway

GPC Minutes, October 18, 1999

The applicant wishes an identical permanent sandwich board to replace the temporary one

previously granted for 60 days. The present sign is blue and white,whereas the approval was for

black lettering. GPC members walked over to look at the sign and determined it was acceptable.

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

BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Granville Goodyear,Larry Harer,200 East Broadway

The applicant requests approval of different colors for the temporary banner sign,

Approval No. 99096. The sign exhibits not the red and white colors approved by the GPC but

yellow background with blue letters. The group must determine whether this is a minor change

for different colors.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO CONSIDER 99096-M AS A MINOR MODIFICATION.

MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE BANNER WITH THE CONDITION

THAT IT BE KEPT UP NO LONGER THAN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ( 60 DAYS).

MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Myers added that the color situation is not a very good practice by the applicant and he hopes

it will not recur.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR A,B, and C UNDER

NEW BUSINESS E(veren,Roberts,and Goodyeara),nd A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AS

FORMAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND

THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Closing Comments:Mr. Wernet stated that with regard to PUD final plans, the Ohio Supreme

Court has ruled that the final plans are subject to referendum;this means that we may have to

treat them as legislative rather than administrative. Mr. Hurst,Village Law Director,is looking

into this.

Next Meetings: November 8 and 22

Sign Code Meetings: November 1 and 15

Adjournment: 8:43 p.m.

GPC Minutes 10/4/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 4,1999

Minutes

Members Present: Keith Myers C( hair)R,ichard Salvage,Bill Wernet,Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent: Jack Burriss,Bernie Lukco

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Shirley Johnson,Dan Leavell

Citizen's Comments: none

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.)

Minutes of September 20,1999:

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

WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of September 27,1999:

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

WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

New Business:

The Murphy Group,Lot 11220 Wexford Drive -Lot Split

Ms. Wimberger stated that the applicant wishes to arrange a lot split without plat.

She told Shirley Johnson that this would make the lots too small ( zoning standards not

met)and suggested making them part of the adjoining properties on Trinity Court. The

lot split could be approved conditionally.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE

CONDITION THAT THE PARCEL BEING SPLIT BE COMBINED WITH

LOTS 11219 AND 11218 TO MAKE TWO LARGE LOTS ( REMEDIAL LOT

COMBINATION).MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dan Leaveil,234 West Elm Street -Shed

The applicant wishes to build a shed in a corner ofthe back yard 5' from side and

rear property lines. It does not need a variance because it is not permanent. Mr. Leavell

stated that he has a small back yard but needs a shed for storage because the garage is

small. The shed will be well hidden behind foliage and will tidy up the yard. It will be a

simple design with an overhang roof,with a little window and little door and T-111 siding.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED.

MR..WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

GPC Minutes,October 6, 1999

Discussion: Ms.Wimberger brought up the issue ofaddressing criteria for approval,

saying that GPC should move to approve and then refer to the specific criteria,i.e.,is the

structure in keeping with the neighborhood;massing;materials. Some concerns raised

were as follows:

Mr. Salvage thought Ms. Wimberger could prepare the Finding ofFacts in advance

Could the standard Finding ofFact just refer to the relevant sections in the code?

This is on the form already}

Approve the Finding ofFact at the next meeting when our meeting is very busy at the

present time?

With a disapproval,GPC could prepare a more detailed Finding ofFact

For expediency,could we simply refer to the items on the Planner's agenda?

The secretary or somebody could write these things down at the meeting.

With no objections heard,little reference need be made

This will be addressed further at the next meeting.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR A and B UNDER

NEW BUSINESSM (urphy and Leavell)AS FORMAL DECISION OF THE

COMMISSION. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings: i r r(egularM) onday,October 18

November 8 and 22

Sign Code Meetings: November 1 and 15

Adjournment: 7:56 p.m.

GPC Minutes 9/27/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 27,1999

Minutes

Members Present:Jack Burriss,Keith Myers C( hair)R,ichard Salvage,Bill Wernet,Carl

Wilkenfeld

Members Absent:Bernie Lukco

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden SentineD,George Parker,Mark Gearhart,Carolyn Kibler,

William Logan, John Friday,Tod Darfus,Ed Cohn,Dave Shumway,Ben and Nadine Rader

Citizens'Comments: none

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.}

Minutes of August 23,1999: Page 3, under Rogers, 3d paragraph,M "r. Myers thought there was a

better chance of approving...."

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

BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of September 13,1999: Under 2d paragraph under ZarbauaghM, "r. Wilkenfeld would also

like to see photos of the front of the house and garage to see how the carport would look on the

site."

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

BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

New Business:

Ben Rader, 311 East College Street

The applicant is requesting a brick fence with a 6'x54' wall. There is an existing

foundation of a sort of the property. The neighbor to the rear half ofthe west side has a wood

fence and an existing brick wall.

Mr. Rader described the project and said the fence would be 1' wide with the cap in brick

and with no pillars.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS

SUBMITTED. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Tod Darfus, 2233 East Broadway

Mr. Darfus wishes to remove the old metal roof and install onyx black 40-year dimension

shingles.

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

SALVAGE SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

11>

GPC Minutes, Monday, September 27, 1999

Mary Friday, 132 and 133 Bryn Du Woods

Mr. Wimberger stated that the applicant wishes to combine the two lots so that one house

can be, built upon it. This is a minor modification to the development plan. John Friday said they

want to take advantage of the corner and save as many trees as possible and thought it would be

more aesthetically pleasing on the corner.

Mr. Wilkenfeld thanked and commended Mr. Friday for his careful application.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.

MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Bank First National,222 East Broadway

Mark Gearhart stated that safety was the main concerft in their plans They are planning a

sidewalk to the ATM and taking care of lighting and landscaping concerns.

Bill Logan described the lighting plan which is to take place. They are replacing all six lighting

fixtures in a traditional style. They are addressing the two concerns ofGPC: 1( )styleth--e lamp

itself is actually in the hood and 2( )brightnessit-'-a true cut-off luminaire to minimize brightness.

The lights are to be high pressure sodium which can be seen under foggy conditions because of

its monochrome. The gold color will match the color ofthe building and the wattage will remain

the same. He said they are able to compress the light down toward the walking surface. Lights

will be mounted 14' high on a 2' base, and the pole will be painted black. There will be a distinct

line beyond which the light will not go. It will have no shield.

George Parker described the changes in the landscaping plan and members agreed with the

design with the exception that Mr. Myers liked the hemlock but thought the columare maple

could be substituted by a straight species. He worried that the boxwood would get blitzed and

thinks taxus or seagreen juniper would be preferable.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH

AMENDMENTS BROUGHT IN TO TONIGHT'S MEETING. THE APPLICANT

DOES NOT HAVE TO ADD HEMLOCKS ON THE JOINT PROPERTY LINE IF THE

NEIGHBOR OBJECTS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

David Shumway,204 North Granger Street

Mr. Shumway would like to change plans for the fence to enclose the back corner of

the property which was originally left open. The fence would be the same height as the other

fencing. The area currently houses a compost heap,which he would clean up. The neighbors have

no objections to the plan. The deadline for completion had been set at September 30 and Mr.

Shumway wondered whether he might have an extension.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE MODIFICATION IS A MINOR ONE. MR.

2

2

GPC Minutes, Monday, September 27, 1999

WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE AMENDED MODIFICATION TO THE

APPLICATION AND EXTEND DEADLINE TO OCTOBER 10, 1999. MR. BURRISS

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Certified Oil

Ms. Wimberger summarized the latest developments in the plans. The landscaping meets

our revised code. They will install any brick we specify. The building will have mansard roof

with brick columns and an externally lit sign. The lighting under the canopy must be subdued.

There will be a single canopy and no new building. The columns will be bricked in Mr. Myers

suggested some revisions to the detail. The plastic wood sign should have more white space and

make the three little gas prices one third of the space.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR A, B, and C under NEW

BUSINESS R(ader,Darfus,Friday)AND A and B UNDER OLD BUSINESSB (ank First

National & Shumway)AS FORMAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION. MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:

October 4 i(rregular dates because of holiday)M (r. Lukco absent)

October 18 i(rregularM) r(. Lukco and Mr. Wilkenfeld absent)

November 8 and 22 -Regular meetings

November 1 and 15 -Sign Ordinance

Adjournment: 8:22 p.m.

GPC Minutes 9/20/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 20,1999

Minutes

Members Present:Keith Myers C( hair)R,ichard Salvage,

Members Absent:Carl Wilkenfeld,Bernie Lukco,Bill Wernet,Jack Burriss

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: none

Called to order: 7:30 p.m.

Citizens'Comments: none

Old Business:

Chapter 1189 - Signs

Revisions ofthe sign code were discussed. Particularly,pages 8-11; the Design

Standards ofthe Planned Industrial C&ommercial Districts,Suburban Business District,

Community Service District in proposed section 1189.05.01. Changes are noted on the

draft copy ofthe proposed sign code revision.

The sign code committee adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

GPC Minutes 9/13/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 13,1999

DRAFT

Members Present:Jack Burriss, Bernie Lukco,Richard Salvage,Carl Wilkenfeld

Acting Chair)

Members Absent: Keith Myers C( hair)B,ill Wernet

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden SentineD, Ned Roberts,Sara Lee,Brian Corbett,Mark

Julie Zarbaugh, Jed and Jill Levere

Citizens'Comments: none

The Acting Chair swore in all those who planned to speak)

Minutes:

Minutes of August 23,1999: Consideration ofMinutes was postponed until

more members are present. MR. LUKCO MOVED TO TABLE

CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. MR.

BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Mark Zarbaugh,313 Spellman Street

The applicant is requesting (1)to replace existing rectangular window on east

elevation with octagon window. The new window will match an octagon window on the

west side. 2 ( )To install a carport to be attached to the garage for his boat. It will have a

canopy and the trim will match colors of the house. He wants to enlarge the driveway to

make it easier to get in and out, and the project will meet all specifications ofNewark's L

code. The carport will jut out 3' beyond the garage and will extend 26' toward the front.

The roofwill be slightly pitched. The aluminum posts would be 21' back and 7 1/2' from

each other

Mr. Burriss thought the project lacked aesthetics and the group worked with Mr.

Zarbaugh to come up with a more attractive style. The applicant said there are similar

carports in the village, and he would be happy to bring in photos of them. He thought a

new carport would lessen the impact of looking at a boat. Mr. Wilkenfeld would also like

to see photos of how the carport woyld look on the site.

r Il3, %DC-- *A- S»pe.-78a L*

The application will be considered in two phases.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE WINDOW AS

PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATION ( PHASE I).

HE ALSO MOVED TO TABLE ( PER APPLICANT'S REQUEST)THE

BALANCE OF THE APPLICATION PENDING RECEIPT OF FURTHER

2 -i

GPC Minutes, Monday,September 13, 1999

INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT. MR.BURRISS SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Brian Corbett,211 East Elm Street

Mr. Corbett wishes to install a white picket fence with gates and arbor around the

perimeter ofthe yard. He provided pictures and stated that they will not be adding a gate,

and the fence stops 22'from the back ofthe yard. The area will be gravelled,not paved.

Landscaping could be added later. He was not certain whether to use arched or even

pickets in the arbor.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO (1)

THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION BEING SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE IN

THE DRAWINGS. 2 ( )MR. SALVAGE UNDERSTANDS THEREWILL BE

42"HIGH PICKETS. 3 ()THE ARBOR ENTRANCE TO BE REVIEWED BY

THE VILLAGE PLANNER UPON LEARNING EXACTLY WHAT STYLE

MR. CORBETT WILL SELECT. ( 4)FENCE ON EAST SIDE WILL STOP 22'

FROM THE NORTH LINE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Sara-Lee, 124 South Cherry Street-

Mr. Wimberger stated that the applicant two years ago received permission to

build a similar addition but oriented differently. She never got around to building it,and

now she will shift it to create a private counyard in the back. Ned Roberts added that it

will be in the back and not very visible from the street. It will have the same pitch as

existing house and no windows will face neighbors. A.C. will be moved back behind the

addition.

MR. LUCKO MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS

DEFINED IN THE APPLICATION. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND IT

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

OId Business:

James and Jill LeVere,216 North Granger Street

In order to adhere with BZBA requirements of 6' of landscaping,the LeVeres are

changing the elevations on their plans and replacing the garage door on north with

windows and changing other windows also. He wants to make the drivewa9 enter offthe

alley w(hich apparently is frequently used)and move it back,but GPC has no authority to

approve entrance offan alley. Village Council must approve this. He has concerns about

the neighbor's footers and erosion and will regrade the surface along garage to make it

even. The windows will be like those above the proposed windows. Landscaping will be

added.

2_

m / 4& ./

GPC Minutes, Monday,September 13, 1999

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE MODIFICATIONS TO THE

APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS: ( 1)NORTH ELEVATION,

ELIMINATE GARAGE DOOR AND ADD WINDOWS SIM[ LAR TO C

STYLE WINDOWS; ( 2)ELIMINATE LIGHTS ON EITHER SIDE OF WHERE

GARAGE DOOR WAS TO BE;3 ()NORTH ELEVATION,ELIMINATE D

WINDOW AND CHANGE THE WINDOWS ON THE NORTH FROM A TO B

WINDOWS. ALSO,ELIMINATE BOTH J KITCHENWINDOWS;4 ()SOUTH

ELEVATION,ELIMINATE 3 K WINDOWS AND INSTALL 3 A WINDOWS.

MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Village Of Granville,141 East Broadway

Ms. Wimberger presented the application for remodelling the building. Because

the leaking roof must be repaired as soon as possible,the Village wishes to remodel

exterior ofbuilding also. This can be done in two phases. The roofwill have something

like a 3 1/2' high widow's walk railing on rooftop,and a pediment with window will

enhance the entrance. Mr. Burriss likes aluminum or plastic to look like wood for the

railing. The shingles would be charcoal black with variation,and the pediment would be

stucco or painted brick. Some members did not like painted bricks.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUILDING ROOF AND

PEDIMENT AS PER EXHIBIT A WITH WIDOW'S WALK,FINIAL

RAILING,AND ORIEL WINDOW TO BE AS SPECIFIED PER AGREEMENT

WITH MR. BURRISS REPRESENTING GPC. THERE WILL BE CHARCOAL

BLACK SHINGLES AND THE RAILING TO BE UP TO 42"IN WHITE.

PEDIMENT TO BE BRICK TO MATCH THE BUILDING AS CLOSELY AS

POSSIBLE. MR. LUKCO SECONDED, AND PHASE I WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

For Phase II, discussion ensued on windows and addition of a clock, bright

awnings, kiosk, etc. It's important to keep enough light,and members liked the fact that

passers-by can look into the office. Ms. Wimberger will take these comments under

advisement.

Work Session:

Certified Oil

Ms. Wimberger explained the changes which Certified has envisioned with changes

proposed for South Main. Sidewalk will be approximately where the ditch is located. The

IGA sign will have to come down. Certified would have two bays,and they want a

canopy over the existing kiosk. GPC had some concerns for their site plans:

3

GPC Minutes, Monday,September 13, 1999

Lighting needs to be low. Streetlights may be added.

Landscaping plan necessary

Monument sign with gas prices with spotlight,not internally lit (see Ordinances)

New shingles

Enclose posts with brick

Roofing color should be subtle

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR A (for the

windowsB), f(or the pedimentC),,and D UNDER NEW BUSINESSZ (arbaugh,

Village,Corbett,Lee)AND A (as modified)UNDER OLD BUSINESS ( LeVere)

AS FORMAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION. MR. WILKENFELD

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:

September 20 -Sign Ordinance

September 27 -Regular meetingM ( r. Lukco absent)

October 4 ir(regular dates because ofholiday) R -egularMeetingsM ( r. Lukco absent)

October 18 i(rregular)R -egular MeetingM ( r. Lukco and Mr.Wilkenfeld absent)

October 25 -Sign Ordinance

Adjournment: 9:40 p.m.

GPC Minutes 8/23/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 23,1999

Minutes

DIGr¥=

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Keith Myers C( hair)R,ichard Salvage, Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent:Bernie Lukco,Bill Wernet

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner,Rufus Hurst,Law Director

Visitors Present:Scott Rawden S( entinel)J,effrey Pound,Bill Stevenson,Dean Ramsey,Barbara Franks,

Mike Romei,Terry Van Offeren,Ned Roberts,Bob Seith,Mark Gearhart,Dick Ansley

Citizens'Comments: none

The Chairperson swore in all those who planned to speak.)

Minutes of August 9,1999: Under the M" inutes"section change M" r. Lukco seconded"to M" r.

Salvage seconded .

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

AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Question and Answer Session with Rufus Hurst

Mr. Hurst was invited to clarify 1159.05(d)procedures with regard to the Rogers Garage

application. The question before the group is whether this is a modification or whether it constitutesa "

significant change"which necessitates a new application.

Mr. Hurst reviewed the history of the application:

Original application was filed and permit was issued

Project was started

Upon notification of neighbors,Village Planner visited the site and found it was not built according to

specifications

Staff issued a " cease and desist"order until such time as applicant either constructed project as

approved or came back to GPC

Mr. Hurst was asked what is the most reasonable way to deal with this situation

He thought the most direct and expeditious way was to seek an amendment to the original approval

Applicant returned to GPC with amended application

Approval was denied

Applicant decided not to appeal because he was working on additional refinements

Applicant returned to GPC with further refinements to what was originally approved

GPC was uncertain how to proceed and requested advice from Law Director

Mr. Myers stated that this was considered a modification for an application already deitied and is

substantially different, so this should be considered a new application. Could this go on indefinitely?No,

because that would be unreasonable. The applicant should be given an reasonable amount of time to

resolve the issue. He wondered about setting precedents,but Mr. Hurst said alleged nonconformities are

not a common instance, but in the spirit of working cooperatively with GPC, something may possibly be

worked out.

Mr. Myers wondered about the difference between a new and a modified application. This

particular application required a variance from BZBA,a public process which notifies neighbors and gives

them opportunity for input. In this case applicant has circumvented the BZBA,but Mr.Hurst disagreed

because the modified application does not violate setback approvals. Mr. Myers stated that BZBA also

looks at uses.

Mr. Hurst said that if no reconciliation is possible, the applicant must go to Village Council,and

Mr. Myers said that for reconciliation to occur,the applicant needs to return to BZBA. Mr. Hurst said

GPC Minutes,August 23,1999

that ifthe applicant asked for avariance for XfromBZBA and ifmodifications do not require X to be

changed,there is nothingfor them to say. Applicantdid not submit a new applicationbecausehe was told

to submit this as a modification. Mr.Wilkenfeld thought ifa new application comes in,it needs to go to

BZBA.

Mr.Myers said that the code places on GPC the burden ofdeterminingwhether modifications are

significant. Ifthey are significant in GPC's opinion,statedMr.Hurst,the applicant will appeal to Village

Council,who will examine the Finding ofFact;they have the right to remand the issue back to GPC.

Village Council has to deal with the issue ofthe partially completed building.

Mr.Hurst stated that he wanted to return to a GPC meeting and discuss Finding ofFacts,when

they should be prepared and how to make that smoother and more timely. Members agreed to meet at 7

p.m. at he next meeting.}

New Business:

Maple Grove Cemetery -Fence

Ms. Wimberger said the Township Board ofTrustees has received conditional use permission to

expand cemetery areas behind houses on East Maple. They are seeking permission for a 6ft chain-link

fence with barbed wire surrounding the perimeter ofthe cemetery. It will be painted green,but a darker

shade than the existing fencing,so as to better fit-in with the foliage.

Jim Havens described the project and the exact locationt o-[the west ofthe existing cemetery,

south of houses on East Maple Street,east ofthe bike path extension of South Pearl Street,north ofTJ

Evan's bike path].The Township traded property with the Village for an abandoned roadway,and the

fence is for security. They are taking neighbors'concerns into consideration. The fence will be setback

10ft from north property line. Plantings will be on the outside ofthe fence. The slope falls offsteeply

and the fence will not be too visible.

Dean Ramsey,landscape architect said the fence will be lined with mixed shrubs and trees.

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

BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Perry F.Watson,Granville Chiropractic,115 N.ProspectStreetS.-ign

Ms. Wimberger said the applicant would like a white-lettered sign on the door of his business.

GPC previously approved another sign,but this is an additional sign. Dr. Watson said that he is required

by law to have this information posted.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITIED. MR. BURRISS

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

June Bennettfor Larry Harer,Granville Goodyear,200 East Broadway -Signs

Larry Harer has leased the previous service station and is seeking signs for his business: 1 ()a

temporary black and white 8 sq.ft sandwich board located 20/E from the curb on East Broadway,listing

hours and specials; 2 ()temporary OPEN sign,12 sq.ft.,red with white lettering,to hang on the building;

3)a permanent 8.8 sq.ft. wall sign adding the word Granville to the existing Goodyear sign. Letters will

match existing black letters.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR ALL THREE SIGNS WITH

CONDITIONS THAT 1( )THE RED AND WHITE BANNER SIGN BE LIMITED TO 60 DAYS;2 ()

THE SANDWICH BOARD MUST BE BROUGHT INSIDE WHEN BUSINESS IS CLOSED;THIS

WILL BE IN PLACE FOR 6 MONTHS ONLY, A PERMANENT SIGN APPLICATION MAY BE

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

2

GPC Minutes,August 23,1999

Grace Haven Academy, 1820 NewarkG-ranville Road P- laygroundfacilities P- UD

Ms. Wimberger said the Grace Haven Academy of Spring Hills Baptist Church seek permission

to locate playground equipment at the rear of the church and school. The action by GPC is to make a

recommendation to Village Council of the revised sit development plan. Many neighbors were displeased

with the original location close to their properties,and this one is farther away and shielded by trees and

at a lower elevation.

Bill Stevenson explained the exact location and said the equipment would be installed with

footers, but could be moved if necessary. The material of the equipment is made out of a composite. This

area is partially wooded and mostly screened from neighbors and Rt. 16.

MR SALVAGE MOVED TO RECOMMEND SITE PLAN TO VILLAGE COUNCIL. MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Dan Rogers, 2 JO East Maple -Modification

Mr. Salvage excused himselffrom consideration of this application. }

The applicant is presenting a modification to the previously approved 1997 applica,don. Because

the owner has constructed a building other than what was approved,the GPC must determine whether

changes are significant. Mr. Myers said this is a new modification of the original application,and

according to the Law Director,we are to evaluate it against the previous approved application.

Ned Roberts, Builder,said he helped with the drawings. Originally a two-story saltbox was

approved, but the applicant thought he had license to change design to one more practical for his

purposes. The former Zoning Inspector did not raise any objections,but now we are confronted with the

massing concerns. The awning will break up the massing.

,

tcttvO£4--e-L:

Mr.Myers thought there was ghprobability of approving thes t'ructurjps a new application. GPC has looked at the impact of the more massive building and have looked at what BZBA approved. If

this application successfully negotiates its way through BZBA,it has a better chance because the people

immediately impacted have opportunity to give input into the process.

Barbara Franks, also owner of 210 East Maple Street,said none of her neighbors have a problem

with the structure. The new structure is shorter,but GPC noted that the square footage is greater. Mr.

Myers said we have to consider precedent-setting. Members agreed that the changes were significant.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THE MODIFICATION IS A MAJOR CHANGE FROM THE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION,97053. IT FALLS UNDER ZONING CODE 1159.05.d AND

THEREFORE APPROVAL IS DENIED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Myers said this is appealable to Village Council, or the applicant may submit a new proposal,which

he would encourage him to do, with BZBA review.

Terry and Sue Van Offeren,210 South Mulberry - Modification

The applicants wish to modify the approved garage by extending it 1ft, to 29ft. The lean- to

structure would be 7ft. rather than the approved 6ft.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A MINOR CHANGE UNDER

SECTION 1159.05.d;MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE MODIFICATION BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED;MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

3

GPC Minutes,August 23,1999

Robert Seith,116 Locust Place - Modification

In the middle of construction,Mr.Seith discovered that the previouslylapproved brackets are too

big and he is asking for a decorative bracket which will fit. He presented pictures for the group.

MR.SALVAGE MOVED TOCONSIDER THIS AMINOR CHANGE UNDER SECTION 1159.05.d;

MR.WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR.SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MODIFICATION AS PRESENTED;MR.WILKENFELD

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Bank First National,222 East Broadway

Mark Gearhart reviewed that at the last meeting questions arose about the possibility of moving

the ATM to the front,but they are unable to accommodate an ATM in the front ofthe building due to size

and access. Additionally,they consulted with three other banks and determined that a window would

have to be removed and the plan would be excessively expensive and ruin the aesthetics. It cannot go on

the alley side because it's narrow and isolated. They propose adding yellow speed bumps and w"atch for

pedestrians"sign to their original plan, There would be a sidewalk with 6-7 inch curb,and a pedestrian

would be looking straight ahead so there is good visibility.

Dick Ansley reviewed the planting they designed for the project and some suggestions were

made. The planting needs to be low enough to see over.

Bill Logan described the lighting plan. They would minimize off-property illumination with

shields on the rear sides ofhe lights. Mr. Myers thought cut-offfixtures are far better to shield the light.

Mr.Myers wanted to know what the light bleed looks like on neighboring properties,and Mr.Logan said

the existing liglits would be shielded in the back There would not be more light than there is now. The

existing lighting is the minimal amount the back is required to have by law.

Village omce Building,141 East Broadway

The Village wishes to remodel the exterior of the building and re-roof and add a structural peak.

GPC members gave suggestions for the design. The roof is leaking and they need to act quickly,and Mr.

Myers asked about the roof color. Samples were provided,and the group likes the darker color li(ke a

charcoal).

Finding of Fact:

MR. SAL.VAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR A,B,C,and D UNDER NEW BUSINESS

Cemetery,Watson,Harer,Grace Haven)AND A,B, AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESSR (ogers,

VanOfferen,Seith)AS FORMAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION. MR. WILKENFELD

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:

September 13 ( Keith Myers will be absent)

September 27 meeting to begin at 7 p.m. with discussion with Law Director

September 20 -Sign Ordinance

Adjournment: 9:45 p.m.

GPC Minutes 8/16/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

SPECIAL MEETING -August 16,1999

MINUTES

Present: Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers,Richard Salvage,Wernet

Members Absent: Jack Burriss,Carl Wilkenfelt

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors: Art Pietrafesa

Art Pietrafesa and Truet McDowell,204 South Pearl Street

The application was tabled at the last meeting,pending receipt of further

information about the windows. The requested information has been received;members

discussed the plan and found it acceptable.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MODIFIED DRAWINGS. MR. LUKCO

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes on Sign Code:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 17,JUNE 21,AND

AUGUST 2 BE ADOPTED AS SUBMITTED. MR.LUKCO SECONDED,

AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 7:40 p.m.

GPC Minutes 8/9/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 9,1999

Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers C( hair)R,ichard Salvage

Members Absent: Bill Wernet,Carl Wilkenfeld,Kathryn Wimberger

Also Present:Lindsay Mason,Intern; Joe Hickman,Village Manager

Visitors Present:Scott Rawden S( entinel)B,etty Morrison,Noni Nutter,Bob Lavender,Art Pietrafesa,

Dick Layton,Laura Andujar,Norman and Teri Ingle, Carl Johnson

Citizens'Comments: none

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.)

Minutes of July 26,1999: 44»

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR.Ij#60*SECONDED,AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes for Sign Code Revisions Discussions: Postponed for review at the August 16, 1999 meeting.

New Business:

Richard Layton, 75 Westgate Drive -Temporary Sign

Ms. Mason introduced the application, stating the applicant would like permission to keep the

banner sign on a temporary basis for one year until he can design a new sign. It is a plastic canvas sign,

white with dark green letters,ca. 6 sq.ft.

Mr. Layton said he needs a temporary sign because he needs more time to design a permanent

sign.

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

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Greg Ross,IGA,South Main Street

Ms. Mason said the applicant would like to replace the loading dock and repair the drainage

system. She added that she received today a letter of concern from the village engineers a{ ttacheda},nd it

should be considered as a condition for approval for approval,since application is in the FHOD. The

concrete slab would cover ca. 200 sq.ft.;a new rolling door will be installed, and the existing opening will

be filled in to fit the smaller door. The drainage system would have a 2'x2' catch basin with 60 pipe

leading to the creek.

Laura Andujar,contractor, sees no problems with the engineer's concerns. The existing wall is

deteriorating and needs to be repaired.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH CONDITION THAT APPLICANT

MUST ADHERE TO ALL THE ENGINEERAES CONCERNS. MR.LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Betty Morrison,Westgate Antiques,129 Westgate Drive -Sign 1

1)The applicant is requesting a 2'x4' wooden sandwich board in the R.O.W. of Cherry Valley

and Westgate to direct people to her antique shop. This would replace the sign in existence now.

Mr. Lukco and others agreed that with several businesses on Westgate,a directory sign would be

preferable to a variety of different signs. Ms. Morrison thought the sandwich board could be temporary

until a joint sign is applied for. Owners were concerned about the cost. Mr. Myers stated that this one

GPC Minutes,August 9,1999

would have to be brought inside after working hours. We have to be careful about setting a precedent

about sandwich boards there.

Mr.Lavander,owner,is concerned about too many signs being applied for on his property and

worries about the liability issue. Therefore,the signs would have tobe in the ROW,unless the owners

could lease some land from him. He would be reluctant to mow it. That land is available and he does not

want to hinder a sale. Mr.Hickman stated that care mustbe taken to ensure visibility while offering

direction to businesses. Mr.Myers said ifthe sign is deemed to be a nuisance it will have to be removed.

The sign is very high and he asked whetherMs.Morrison could lower it to 3'from 4',and she agreed. It

was agreed to leave the exact location up to Village personnel. It would be taken in each night,and will

remain for 6 months only.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR A SANDWICH BOARD WITH

CONDITIONS: IT IS TO BE IN PLACE FOR 6 MONTHS ONLY;2 ()LOCATION AT THE

INTERSECTION TO BE APPROVED BY VILLAGE PERSONNEL;3 ()IT IS TO BE 2'X3'A; ND 4( )

THE SIGN WILL BE REMOVED DURING ALL NON-WORKING HOURS. MR.LUKCO

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Betty Morrison, 129 Westgate Drive -Sign 2

2)The applicant also requests a change in colors for her previously approved ground sign at the

shop,which were to be red background with white letters. Now the sign is red letters with yellow

background.

Mr.Burriss stated that GPC would like both signs to be similar,graphically and color- wise,and

Ms. Morrison agreed.

MR.LUKCO MOVED THAT THE REQUEST FOR THE CHANGING OF COLOR OF THE SIGN IN

FRONT OF THE BUILDING BE APPROVED WITH A WHITE BACKGROUND AND BLACK

LETTERS. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Terry and Norman Ingle, Pippin Hill General Store,113 North Pearl - sign

The owners wish to erect a business sign to hang where the old Gran Rental

sign was hung. Ms. Mason passed around the design and the colors.

Ms. Ingle said the sign is a little bigger but still within the 8AE requirement.

MR.LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN;MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Art Pietrafesa and Truet McDowell,204 South Pearl Street - second story addition

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE;MR. SALVAGE

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Mason said that the applicants want to change the second story of the house by raising a

portion of the roof ca. 3/E. Mr. Pietrafesa said extensive repairs were done by a previous owner. He did

some more renovations and now is ready to request Phase II to add a master suite with 3 windows and a

bath with 2 windows and 7/ E of head room. The windows will match existing windows. He is looking for

architectural integrity specific to the time period of both exterior and interior.

Mr. Myers said there were questions last time about the windows and the porch railing and the

overall massing. Mr.Burriss asked for clarification about coordination ofthe rear elevation with the left

side elevation. Mr. Pietrafesa said when the addition was done,there was an unusual jog to the left of the

porch roof resulting in a complex roof plan. They will use the existing footprint and there will be a trellis

added.

2

4·L

GPC Minutes,August 9,1999

The windows were still a concern of the GPC because the drawing of slide windows is not as he

described the windows tonight.

Mr. Pietrafesa requested that the application be tabled,and he will submit new drawings. Mr.

Salvage suggested the group meet next Monday at 7:30 and everyone agreed.

MR.SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION. MR.LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Denison University,Monomoy,204 West Broadway

Ms. Mason stated that the garage was approved by GPC pending the architectect's submitting the

rear elevation and a drawing showing context.

The architect said he went over this morning and took photos and took Mr. Wakeman's plan to

add to the design,showing landscaping with forsythia and redbud. Trees have already been moved. He

stated that they will add a window on the west side as per GPC request.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE LANDSCAPING PLAN AS SUBMITIED WITH

MODIFICATION TO THE GARAGE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR A,B,C,and D UNDER NEW BUSINESS

Layton, Ross,Morrison,Ingle)AS FORMAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION. MR.LUKCO

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:

August 16, 7:30'p.m. -Special Meeting to consider Pietrafesa application

August 23 and September 13 K( eith Myers will be absent)R -egular meetings

August 30 -Sign Ordinance

Adjournment: 9:30 p.m.

GPC Minutes 7/26/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA

July 26,1999

1) CALL TO ORDER

2) ROLL CALL

3) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A) July 12, 1999

4) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS

5) NEW BUSINESS

Administrative Actions

A)Debra Llewellyn-415 East Broadway

SRD-B,AROD #99048

Zoning & Architectural Permit Application -deck

B)Terry &Sue Van Offeren -210 South Mulberry Street

VRD,AROD #99067

Zoning & Architectural Permit Application -garage

C) Art PietrafesaT &ruet McDowell -204 South Pearl Street

VRD,AROD #99075

Zoning & Architectural Permit Application -second level addition

D) Bank First National -222 East Broadway AJA

ClyU/ L--//\

VBD,AROD #99076

Zoning & Architectural Permit Application -Other structures

6) OLD BUSINESS

A) Dan Rogers -210 East Maple Street

VRD,AROD #99053-M2

Modified Zoning Permit Application -2 story Garage

7)FINDING OF FACT approvals

8) MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS

A) Next GPC Meeting - August 9, 1999 -7:30 p.m. -Village Council Chambers

B) Following GPC Meeting -August 23, 1999 -7:30 p.m. -Village Council Chambers

9) ADJOURNMENT

qr--Q-Ch)- I «

t1 Do) -

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 26,1999

Minutes

Members Present: Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers C( hair)R,ichard Salvage,Bill Wernet Members Absent:Jack Burriss,Carl Wilkenfeld

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner,Lindsay Mason, Intern Visitors Present: Scott Rawden Se, iti,ief),Debra Llewellyn,Mark Gearhart, Richard

McGuinness, George Parker,Barbara Lucier,Ned Roberts, Barbara Franks, Jim Petit, Terry and Sue VanOfferen

Citizeias'Comments: none

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.)

Minutes of July 12,1999:

Page 1, third paragraph from bottom,change " sough"to south.

Page 2, last paragraph,changee "ve"to eave.

Page 3, line 2, change 'SIDE"to WALL.

MR. LI.JKCO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR.

SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

New Business:

Debra Llewelly, i,4 15 East Broachvay -deck

The applicant would like to add a wood deck with lattice for flowers on west side

of house. BZBA approved the variance for the side yard setback. GPC determined that

no neighbors will be negatively affected and, given the distance from the street, it will not

be very visible.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.

MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

leity a,id Site Vai,Ojfeieit,210 Soutli Mulber,y -garcige

The applicants would like to replace the existing garage with a two-car garage.

The brick driveway would be replaced by blacktop and widened near the second garage

door entrance. BZBA approved the variance for side yard setback with condition that

there be 2' from south property line, and they stated that the structure's location may be

up to 2' farther to the east. Mr. Van Offeren said they want to get away from the look of

an attached garage. They originally wanted it to be 1'4"from the line but BZBA found

that to be insufficient distance from the property line. The applicant ma>narrow the width

ofthe structure from 22' to 21 1/ 2' to ensure a comfortable distance between the house

and garage. There is a 6'x 6' porch with door at the rear which makes the footprint a

1

regular rectangle. The structure will be 4'higher than the present garage,and all materials

will match the house. There will be shutters on the windows like those on the existing

garage

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH CONDITION

THAT APPLICANTS MAY MOVE THE GARAGE 2' FARTHER BACK IF

SO DESIRED. MR. LUKCO SECONDED, AND lT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Art Pietrafesa and 11u' etMcDoweli,204 South Peali Stleet s-econdstotc)idditiot:

The applicants were not present. Jim Petit,Contractor,explained the plans as he

understood them. He said the footprint is the same and they want to add a second level on

the rear,visible from Elm Street by raising the roof of the kitchen approximately two feet.

The house is on the National Historic Register and Commission members had a number of

questions about how it would look. The Commissioners were concerned with the

historical integrity of the structure relative to the proposed addition.

Mr. Myers asked about the hipped roof and wondered why a gable roof,as is there

now, would not be appropriate on the addition. Since there was an addition to the house

at an earlier stage,the appearance is important so as to not change the historic integrity.

However,a gabled roof would probably make the structure look more massive than a

hipped roof. All materials,windows,etc.,will match existing house.

Mr. Lukco is opposed to the application because it seems to deprive the house of

its historical integrity.

Mr. Salvage would prefer to have the entire Commission present to review this

application.

Nir. Pet it requested that the application be tabled.

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION. MR. SALVAGE

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bak/,1·7/st Natioi,al,222 East Broadv,ay

Ms. Wimberger introduced the application by saying the bank wishes to remove

the ATM from the wall of the building,reconstruct the drive-through area with vacuum air

tubes, extend canopy 12' west to cover equipment,replacing two parking spaces with

landscaping for improved aesthetics.

Mark Gearhart stated they are reversing the traffic through the drive-through so

cars would enter on the south driveway on Prospect Street. There used to be an island

under the canopy, and this will be re-installed for safety. Most of their customers are

drive-in and prefer to remain in their cars for transactions.

Dick McGuinness, a civil engineer, consulting engineer for BFN,talked about the

traffic study and survey. They took a count on a Friday afternoon and Saturday morning

and compared their findings against some national data. They analyzed projections for the

future and came up with a 28 per cent increase in traffic. They also counted pedestrians

GPC.li\nutes,Julv 26, 1999

2

1 -4

who walked across their driveway but did not consider Denison students, since classes

were not in session, except to assume there would be 50 when Denison is in session. Their per cent more traffic on Prospect survey mostly considered vehicular traffic and concluded

a car would have an average 6-second delay exiting the bank. A second lane could be opened if tellers saw that cars were piling up.

More discussion ensued on the potentially increased business and number of

customers and stacking rooni and length of each transaction. There would be stacking room for 11 cars in the entrance drive.

Mr. Lukco wished the ATM could be on the front of the building for safety and better pedestrian access, rather than in the rear which requires people to stand in the

driving lanes, but Mr. Gearhart said there is insufficient space for the machine at the front unless they removed a window because an ATM system-requires such items as a computer, printer, and safe with a special door. Mr. Wernet reminded the group that the Master Plan strongly encourages a pedestrian environment

George Parker spoke about the landscaping plan. There is a slight grade, which

makes the bushes lower. They would remove the parking spot at the north entrye/xit and

install a couple of trees and ground cover. They would pour on top ofthe central curb

between the drivet-hrough lane and the parking lot)a 3' wide sidewalk from the street to the ATM. They propose making the hedge all the way along the central sidewalk.

Mr. Myers asked who would use the sidewalk along the east side of the parking lot

and wondered whether it would be possible to remove it and add more landscaping to

screen bank customers'automobile lights from the yards of neighboring residents,but Mr.

Gearhart felt it was necessary for safety. People parking along the north side of the lot

would probably use the east sidewalk to enter the bank at the rear door.

Lights will be replaced by two decorative lampposts similar to those at Denison. A

light next to the canopy would not be necessary because ofthe lights under the canopy. They would remove the two unattractive white posts at the beginning ofthe driveway that

were at one time used for a chain to prevent access. The ATM lights would be on all the

time. Mr. Lukco was concerned about lighting directed towards neighboring properties.

Mr. Myers asked if the lights in the lampposts could be the " cut-off'type,

There would be " do not enter"signs and other signage,and Mr. Lukco reminded

them that a lot of little signs equal a big sign.

Mr. Salvage asked whether pedestrians could access the ATM from either side,

and the answer was no. He thinks standing in the drive- up lane is a poor way for

pedestrians to access the machine, but Mr. Gearhart explained that access from both sides

is not a possible alternative. Mr. Salvage has no problem with stacking of automobiles but

if you want pedestrians to use the ATM,you have to find a better way to do it."

Mr. Lukco's concerns were with pedestrian safety and screening from neighbors,

and others on the Commission agreed. Mr. Gearhart thought some compromises were

possible. Mr. Myers asked whether the group wanted to table or vote, and the applicants

asked for a five-minute recess to discuss the question.

Upon their return,Mr. Myers reiterated GPC's main concerns: (1)Screening

along property line to the east and (2)location of the ATM. Mr. Gearhart asked to table

application.

Gl'C .iii,Jures. jul.9 26. 1999

3

Mr. Myers repeated what the GPC requested: 1 ()landscaping plan,2 ()lighting

plan,3 ()location of ATM

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION AT THE REQUEST OF

THE APPLICANT UNTIL AUGUST 23. THE VILLAGE PLANNER NEEDS

THE MATERIALS BY AUGUST 11. MR. I«UKCO SECONDED,AND IT

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Dcm Roge15.210 East Maple

This application must be tabled since there is not a quorum present of members

who may vote on the application. The modified application includes a statement by the

owner requesting approval for his unauthorized garage construction. in the statement,

Mr. Rogers says that a few neighbors have come to terms with the garage and have

requesed fencing,etc. He is also requesting an extension of time to complete the project.

Mr. Myers could not understand how GPC can consider this since they have

already denied a modified application. He believes there is no application before the

Commission. When Mr. Rogers withdrew his appeal to Village Council, that act ended his

modified application. Any new application forthcoming will need BZBA review also.

Mr. Lukco said this was a unique situation and demands a unique solution. The

building is partly built and Mr. Rogers needs resolution. Others agreed, and Mr. Salvage

wondered why the Law Director requested GPC to review this new modification. We

have to be careful about setting a precedent.

Barbara Lucier suggested that Mr. Wernet report back to Village Council ( V.C.)

at the next meeting so they·will have an opportunity to assess the problem and get more

information from the Law Director. Mr. Wernet would like to see some kind of

instruction before that occasion. He is not sure what V.C. can do,but wants for them to

be completely aware of the situation and know the Law Director's interpretation. Mr.

Lukco suggested a meeting with a member of Village Council,the Law Director, Village

Manager and Village Planner to see what options are available at this point. Mr. Wernet

will convene this group. Mr. Myers added that the ordinances are clear and should be

followed and suggested the Law Director attend the next meeting of GPC for clarification.

Mr. Rogers needs to be aware that there is no application on the table at this point as the

Planning Commission believes to be the situation.

MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THIS MODIFICATION BE TABLED

PENDING CLARIFICATION FROM THE LAW DIRECTOR, MR. MYERS

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

GPC will hold the next sign code meeting August 2 and invite the Law Director to

that meeting to hear his thoughts before the sign code is considered.

Finding of Fact:

Gl'C Alinurcs;Julv 26, 1999

4

Gl'C Alinutes;Julv 26,1999

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR A and B UNDER

NEW BUSINESS ( Llewellyn and VanOfferen)AS FORMAL DECISION OF

THE COMMISSION. MR.LUKCO SECONDED,AND lT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:

August 2, 7:30 p.m. -Law Director and Sign Code

August 9 (Ms. Wimberger will be absent)and August 23-Regular meetings

Adjournment: 9:30 p.m.

GPC Minutes 7/12/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA

July 12,1999

1) CALL TO ORDER

2) ROLL CALL

3) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS

4) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A)June 28, 1999

5) NEW BUSINESS

A) Kathryn & Earnest Tatham -230 South Mulberrv Street

VRD,AROD

Zoning & Architectural Permit Application -addition,air conditioning unit,roofing

6) OLD BUSINESS

A)Vicki &Garret Moore -XX South Prospect Street

VRD,AROD #99065

Zoning A&rchitectural Permit E(#0- 55) fe-nce

Applicant wants a 3.5 ft fence in rear instead of 5 ft.

B) Beniamin N&adine Rader 3-11 East College Street

VRD,AROD #99046-tabled

Zoning & Architectural Permit Application -garage & breezeway

7) FINDING OF FACT approvals

8) WORK SESSION

A)GPC-Off-street parking

B) GPC-General parking

9) MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS

A) Special Meeting for Sign Code revision -July 22, 1999 -7:3Op.m.V-illage Hall 2(nd flo

B) Next GPC Meeting -July 26, 1999 -7:30 p.m. -Village Council Chambers

C) Following GPC Meeting -August 9, 1999 -7:30 p.m. -Village Council Chambers

10)ADJOURNMENT

Memorandum

To: Granville Planning Commission

From. Kath,yn LFimberger.VillagePlanner7g-iv

LindsayMason.htemPlanlier 111'6

Date: July 7, 1999

Re: GPC Meeting on Monday.July 12,1999,7:30 p.m.

New Business

Administrative Actions:

A) Application:

Location:

Applicant:

Zoning:

Use:

99072 -Zoning and Architectural Permit Application

230 South Mulberry Street

KathrynE &rnest Tatham

VRD,AROD

Single Family Residential

Request: Addition to the back of the house,existing metal roof to be replaced by three- tab

shingles,and an air conditioner are requested for approval.

Relevant Sections:

1159.01

1159.03

1161.01

1161.02

1161.05

Village Residential District P-urpose In&tent

Village Residential District D-evelopment Standards

Architectural Review Overlay District P-urposeB &oundaries

Architectural Review Overlay District A-pplication

Architectural Review Overlay District S-tandards and Criteria

Facts:

The applicants would like to construct a 384 (16' x 24')square foot addition at the rear of their home.

The addition would be a one-story structure with white vinyl siding to match that on the existing house

and garage. Dark gray Fiberglas three-tab shingles matching the existing roof would be used for the

addition. and to replace the metal portion on the east side of the main roof. The windows on the south

side will be Anderson vinyl clad.double-hung.similar to the existing windows. The east and north side

windows would be Anderson vinyl clad. casement.with pane treatments.

The air conditioner unit would be on the south side of the addition.but the exact location is yet to be

decided. The unit will be concealed by plantings similar to those already used in the current landscape

design.

Analysis:

The applicants are attempting to improve the appearance and value of their property with the addition

to their home.while trying to be sensitive to the architectural character of the house, the neighborhood,

and the Village.

a) Other house additions have been constructed in the neighborhood. This one appears that it will

blend very well with the existing house so that it will not be very noticeable.

b) By making improvements to their home,the owners are contributing to the improvement and

upgrading of the historical character of the Village Residential District.

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 12,1999

Minutes

Et

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Bernie Lukco,Carl Wilkenfeld,Richard Salvage,Bill Wernet.

Members Absent: Keith Myers

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner;Lindsay Mason,Intern;Beverly Adzic,Clerk.

Visitors Present: Tom Mellott,Don Rife,Jennifer Utrevis,Vicki Moore, Scott Rawdon,JoAnn Morey,

Kathy Tatham,Ernie Tatham.

Citizens Comments: None

Minutes of June 28,1999.

Page 1: add a period and remove the " but"

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR.LUKCO SECONDED.

MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

NEW BUSINESS: 6.-

As all of the issues on tonight's agenda are administrative In nature,Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that

anyone wishing to speak to any of the issues must have standing b(effected by a decisionth)·erefore it is

necessary to swear in all those wishing to make a statement. All those wishing to speak wdre swornnby

Vice Chairman Wilkenfeld.

Kathryn & Earnest Tatam,230 S. Mulberry St. -addition,air conditioning unit,roofing.

V

The Tatham's would like to add an addition to the rear of their house,replace the remaining

existing metal roof, and add an air conditioner. Noting the need and opportunity to expand Mr. Tatham

said the plans are in keeping with the fashion and architecture of the rest of the house. J

Mr. Burriss asked the homeowners to consider moving a window on the south side of the

addition as it is rather close to the corner of the house thus restricting the installation of shutters should

one wish to consider this type of change in the future. He explained that the spacing of the windows on

the east elevation had a more comfortable relationship and tlluelevation,looked awkward with its window spacing. 5>1

h

Following a discussion, the Tatham's agreed to relocate the eastern window on the south

elevation to allow for an additional 30 inches from the corner of the house to the window location. The

remaining windows will be symmetrically adjusted. This will accommodate the Planning Commission's

request for the needs of the exterior in addition to the TathaMiterior plans.

LMR.

SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE

APPLICANT RELOCATING THE WINDOWS ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION SO THAT THE

EASTERN-MOST WINDOW IS LOCATED AT LEAST 30 INCHES FROM THE CORNER OF THE

BUILDING AND THE OTHER TWO WINDOWS SYMETRICALLY RELOCATED. MR.LUKCO

SECONDED. APPLICATION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

t

Planning Commission Minutes

July 12,1999

Page 2

OLD BUSINESS:

Vicki &GarretMoore,S.Prospect St. -3.5 ftfence instead ofthe required 5 ft.

A

The Moore's received prior approval for this application from the Planning Commission on June

28th . The approval was for a 5 ft.fence in the rearyard. TheMoore's have since decided to install a 3.5

ft fenceoth the front and rearyard instead ofthe 5 ft.fence. p

VMR.

SALVAGE MOVED TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION. MR.LUKCO

SECONIL APPLICATION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

BenjaminN &adine Rader,311 E. College St. -garageb &reezeway

Mr. Wernet recused himself from discussion of this application.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO REMOVE THIS APPLICATION REQUEST FROM THE

TABLE. MR.LUKCO SECOND. MOTION CARRIED.

Ms. Wimberger noted that this application was presented to the Planning Commission and tabled

during the meeting ofJune 28. The application has since been revised with the addition ofdormers,and a

height adjustment. No variance is required.

Tom Mellott,attorney for the Rader s,referenced a letter ofconcerns from Mr. Kent ( Granville

InnA)t[tachment Al. The Granville Inn is encroaching upon Mr.Rader's property line by approximately

six feet. He stated that although this is not the place to raise the encroachment issue,there is a need to

address Mr.Kent's concerns. The Village requirement for construction is 10 feet from a property line.

The original application requested that construction be four feet from the Granville Inn ( or 10 feet from

theproplinee*excluding the encroachment by the Granville Inn ofsix feetG)i.v'en Mr.Kent's concern,

the Rader s have agreed to a setback of an additional two feet for a total of six feet from the Granville Inn.

The new setback also is aligned with neighboring garages. Aesthetics of the garage and the breezeway

will enhance the value of the property and add to the community.

Jennifer Utrevis,of Granville Inn,stated that they do not wish to cause problems for their

neighbors. There is a safety concern as to how close the rooms on the top floor ofthe inn as well as the

rear wall are in proximity to theRadgear«age. The Inn was not previously aware ofthe encroachment.

The issue offire protection was discussed. Don Rife,ABA Architects,not-that the Ohio

Building Code requires a fire wall if construction is within five feet. As the Rader s have moved their

garage to six feet from the Granville Inn it is no longer required that there be a fire wall installed on the

garage. It was noted that the kitchen inth'e Inn is not located in the part ofthe building nearest the

RadeVSgarage. -'.

d/+ 2/

Th

r

Planning Commission Minutes

July 12,1999

Page 3 tfulL-E.

jizer;

TE*R f MR. SALVAGE MOVED T APPROVE THE APPLICATION TH THE FOLLOWING

CONDITIONS; 1)THE SOUTI§12! bOF THE GARAGE EA EAST SIX FEET FROM THE

WALL OF THE INN,THE BREEZEWAY IS TO OPORTIONATELY,2)THE

COLOR OF THE ROOF IS TO BE SPECIFIED WITH ACCEPTANCE BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER

PRIOR TO INSTALLATION3„)S_HE SIDING WILL MATCH THE SIDING ON THE EXISTING

HOUSE. MR.LUKCOO(N@g.b§>

APPLICATION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

FINDING OF FACT:

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

Tatham)A,ND A,B,UNDER OLD BUSINESS M( oore,Rader)AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT.

MR. LUKCO SECONDED. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

WORK SESSION:

OFF STREET/ GENERAL PARKING

A preliminary draft of the downtown parking plan was reviewed. Suggestions were: center

median on east end of Broadway to conform with existing median on West Broadway (instead offrom

Main St. to Pearl St as proposedt)h;e use of different paving materials s(uch as cobblestone,brick,etc,)

on Broadway f(rom Main St. to Pearl SL no mediano);ne way streets were mentioned as a possible

solution to creating wider street effects;lhere is also a possible need of areas for bus parking. It was noted

that the Bank First National parking lot on N. Prospect is rarely ever used to capacity. Possibly an

arrangement could be made for the use of those spaces for general parking in the Village.

ADJOURNMENT: Mr.Lukco moved to adjourn at 9:15 pm. Mr.Burri.

NEXT MEETING: July 22 7:30pm -Special Meeting for Sign Code revisions.

Robert N. Kent, Owner

Granville Inn, 314 E. Broadway, Granville, Ohio 43023

July 9, 1999

Re:Architectural Review Application

Ben Rader 311 E. College

RECEIVED '

JUL 1 2 1399

VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE

To: Granville Planning Commission:

Jack Burris, Keith Myers, Carl Wilkenfeld, Bernie Lukco, Richard Salvage

Bill Wernet

I apologize for not attending your meeting in person, but loni*found out by accident

that the Rader application might be discussed at your July 12 and had prior plans that

take me out of town for a few days. Jennifer Utrevis is my partner and President of The

Granville Inn and will be in attendance on the Inn's behalf.

Our concern with the proposed Rader garage is that it will be directly behind and

extremely close to 2 of the Granville Inn's sleeping rooms and will have an adverse

impact on room rentals.

We are asking the Planning Commission to deny approval for the proposed Rader

garage as it now is sited because it is too close to the northerly wall of the Granville Inn

building. The site plan does not show the distance from the northerly wall of the

existing building to the proposed Rader garage, but it appears to be a separation of

only about 4 feet between the proposed garage and the northerly wall of the existing

Granville Inn building. In addition, the new garage roof overhang protrudes another2%

feet beyond the proposed Rader garage wall bringing the roof edge to within 1 %feet of

the northerly wall of the Inn building. In effect, we would be left with a clear separation

of only 1 %feet between the proposed garage and the Inn building.

While the Radefs site plan indicates the required separation between the property line

and the new structure of 10 feet, we believe that the building line is a more proper line

to consider. The part of the Granville Inn building in contention was built in 1865 and

has overlapped the property at 311 College approximately 6 feet for the past 135

years. We argue that in the spirit of the law the existing Granville Inn northerly building

line should be recognized as the line from which the Raders must set back their

proposed garage as opposed to the property line shown on the tax map and by survey.

The Granville Inn wall facing the proposed Rader garage is stucco, and it is virtually

impossible to maintain without erecting a4%foot wide scaffolding. A clear separation

of 1%feet as proposed does not give us room to properly do that job.

At a minimum, the proposed Rader garage should be set back 10 feet from the

northerly wall of the Granville Inn building.

Sincerely,

Robert N. Kent

f I

ArrW*EN+T A

Robert N. Kent, Owner

Granville Inn, 314 E. Broadway, Granville, Ohio 43023

July 9, 1999

Re: Architectural Review Application

Ben Rader 311 E. College

RECEIVED

JUL 1 2 1399

VILLAGE OFGRANVILLE

To: Granville Planning Commission:

Jack Burris, Keith Myers, Carl Wilkenfeld, Bernie Lukco, Richard Salvage Bill Wernet

I apologize for not attending your meeting in person, but l onl found out by accident that the Rader application might be discussed at your July 12 and had prior plans that

take me out of town for a few days. Jennifer Utrevis is my partner and President of The

Granville Inn and will be in attendance on the Inn's behalf.

Our concern with the proposed Rader garage is that it will be directly behind and

extremely close to 2 of the Granville Inn's sleeping rooms and will have an adverse

impact on room rentals.

We are asking the Planning Commission to deny approval for the proposed Rader

garage as it now is sited because it is too close to the northerly wall of the Granville Inn

building. The site plan does not show the distance from the northerly wall of the

existing building to the proposed Rader garage, but it appears to be a separation of

only about 4 feet between the proposed garage and the northerly wall of the existing

Granville Inn building. In addition, the new garage roof overhang protrudes another2%

feet beyond the proposed Rader garage wall bringing the roof edge to within 1 %feet of

the northerly wall of the Inn building. In effect, we would be left with a clear separation

of only 1 %feet between the proposed garage and the Inn building.

While the Rader's site plan indicates the required separation between the property line

and the new structure of 10 feet, we believe that the building line is a more proper line

to consider. The part of the Granville Inn building in contention was built in 1865 and

has overlapped the property at 311 College approximately 6 feet for the past 135

years. We argue that in the spirit of the law the existing Granville Inn northerly building

line should be recognized as the line from which the Raders must set back their

proposed garage as opposed to the property line shown on the tax map and by survey.

The Granville Inn wall facing the proposed Rader garage is stucco, and it is virtually

impossible to maintain without erecting a4%foot wide scaffolding. A clear separation

of 1 %feet as proposed does not give us room to properly do that job.

At a minimum, the proposed Rader garage should be set back 10 feet from the

northerly wall of the Granville Inn building.

Sincerely,

Robert N. Kent

GPC Minutes 6/28/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 28,1999

Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss,Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers C( hair)R,ichard Salvage,

Bill Wernet

Members Absent:Cart Wilkenfeld

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner,Lindsey Mason,Intern

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden SentineD, Ben and Nadine Rader,Dave and Lynne

Kishler,Garrett Moore, Sharon Joseph,Chiropractor-115 N. Prospect,Rodger Kessler,

Don Rife,Debra Lewellyn

Citizen's Comments: none

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak)

Minutes of June 14,1999:

Add Mr. Wernet's name to " Present"list

After Bank First National,add Locally held businesses should not be held to a

higher standard than non-locally owned businesses.

Page 2, first motion,second line: th"e temporary sign in place until this application

is completed and ( 2)pending revisions from the applicant. Mr. Wilkenfeld seconded...."

Page 3, fifth paragraph: M " r. Wilkenfeld stated that according to the AROD

code,."

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR.

WERNET SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Benjamin and Nadine Rader,311 East College Street

Ms. Wimberger stated that revised plans arrived today and are on the table. BZBA

tabled the variance application,requesting more information.

Mr. Lukco said some neighbors have not been able to review the revisions and are

in opposition to the massing. He thinks the neighbors should be present at any decision

making. Whether GPC reviews this tonight depends on how significant the changes are.

Don Rife, architect, said that the revions made were all in response to comments from

members and neighbors at BZBA

Mr. Salvage thought it should be heard tonight, but Mr. Wernet thought it should

be treated as any other application that comes in with changes. Neighbors were not

notified of changes, and those who would be most impacted should be allowed to hear the

discussion.

Mr. Wernet asked whether the. Raders would be willing to table this. Mrs. Rader

said Yes but she would like to explain that with the changes,they do not need a variance

any more. They lowered the height ofthe roofby 4' and moved the structure 10' farther

away from property line.

I &74* ,

I. ,

Don Rife said there would be a utility sink but no plans are made for an apartment. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION UNTIL THE NEXT

MEETING. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED..

Dave and Lynne Kishler,327 West Elm -Remodel Porch

The applicants would like to redo the porch,adding wood railings instead of

metal. The wood is rotting and needs to be replaced.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION. MR. LUKCO

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Vicki and Garrett Moore,207 South Pearl - Fence and Porch

The applicants would like to enclose the front yard with a low-maintenance

wooden picket fence and to screen- in the front porch. The fence would extend to the rear

ofthe house and connect to the garage to keep the children in.

Mr. Burriss wondered why there were two heights listed,and Mr. Moore said they

would gradually increase the height towards the back. They would go with the dog-eared

style.

Mr. Myers asked where the transition from height to height would be, and Mr.

Moore said it was in the front but, after more discussion,thought maybe the fence could

be 42"throughout.

The porch,he added would be wooden with the bottom framed and the top

screened with removable screens for glass.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE

FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: (1)42"PICKET ALONG NORTH SIDE

PROPERTY LINE,42"TO REAR OF HOUSE,TRANSITIONING TO 60"AT

THE BACK; 2()THAT THE FRONT PORCH ENCLOSURE BE FRAMED

WITH WOOD;3 ()THAT THE DOGE- ARED PICKET AS SKETCHED BE

USED;4 ()THAT THE FENCE BE PAINTED BEIGE OR WHITE WITH

PICKETS FACING OUTWARD. MR. LUKCO SECONDED, AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Sharon L.Joseph, 115 North Prospect -signs

Mr. Wimberger said this was a change of use application as well as a sign. It was

previously a video store and the applicant wants to rent the space to a chiropractor, and

the black and white wooden sign is for her business.

MR..LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF USE

FROM VIDEO STORE TO CHIROPRACTOR AND THE SIGN THAT IS

INCLUDED IN APPLICATION BE APPROVED. MR. SALVAGE

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

GPC Minutes,June 28, 1999

2

GPC Minutes,June 28,1999

Bank First National,222 East Broadway -Sign

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TAKE THE BANK FIRST NATIONAL OFF THE

TABLE. MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Rodger Kessler stated they decided to move the sign from where it was to farther

toward the street to keep it at a lower elevation. They split the signs up with artificial

hooks. The color sample is shown and is darker than the computer color. It would be 6'

from the ground to the top.

Mr. Wernet thought the color was much better than the computer sample and

removed a lot ofthe concern,but Mr. Burriss wanted to see the exact location ofthe sign.

Mr..Kessler said it allows more visibility now.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO (1)

THE SIGN BE A MINIMUM OF 3' AWAY FROM THE SIDEWALK AND ( 2)

THE BLUE SHALL MATCH THE COLOR SAMPLE PROVIDED TONIGHT.

MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR B,C,D UNDER

NEW BUSINESS ( Kishler,Moore,Joseph)AND A UNDER OLD BUSINESS

Bank First National)AS FORMAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION. MR.

LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Closing Comments:The Chair said that it was suggested to move Minutes to

consideration at end of meeting,but members decided to leave this at the top of the

Agenda.

Members would rather see revisions arrive in a timely enough fashion to be

included in the regular packet instead of appearing at the meeting.

Next Sign Code meeting is July 19.

Next Meetings: July 12 ( Keith and Betty will be absent)and July 26

Adjournment: 8:35 p.m.

GPC Minutes 6/17/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 17,1999

Minutes

Members Present: Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers C( hair)R,ichard Salvage,Bill Wernet,

Jack Burriss,Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent:none

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner,Lindsay Mason,Planning Intern

Visitors Present: none

Citizens'Comments: none

Old Business:

Village Manager PresentationM - unicipal Building

Joe Hickman,Village Manager,presented some architectural renderings of some possible

exterior renovations to the Village municipal building (141 East Broadway).The Planning

Commission was pleased with the drawings and are in favor ofrenovations to the building.

About half ofthe commission liked a Colonial style rendering,while the others liked a

more southerns- tyle t(he one with the porch)but with some additions. Jack Burriss will

sketch these additions and give them to the Village Planner so a rendering with the

suggestions may be created.

Chapter 1189 -Signs

Revisions ofthe sign code were discussed. Changes are noted on the draft copy of

the proposed sign code revision. Mr. Hickman also asked the commission about signage

along South Main Street. He mentioned that several business were interested in doing

some improvements,signs,being one of them.

MR„.SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE THE DISCUSSION OF THE

ORDINANCE REVISIONS OF CHAPTER 1189 -SIGNS. MR. LUKCO

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY TABLED.

GPC Minutes 5/24/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

MAY 24, 1999

Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Bernie Lukco, Keith Myers, Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent: Richard Salvage, William Wernet

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner, Lindsay Mason, Intern

Visitors Present: Barbara Franks and Dan Rogers, Deborah Jardine, Richard Mahard, Jill

Robeds

Minutes of April 26, 1999. MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.

MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

NEW BUSINESS: All those who wanted to speak tonight were sworn in by the Chair en m sse

Deborah Jardine,223 East College Street - deck jQ1+ <4 2 1»1 T . Ms. Jardine wishes to add a deck to the rear of the house It will look more like a porch

she said, and she will stain the banister white and keep the base a natural color. It will blend in

well with the house, which has wood siding. It won't be very visible from the street. The

dimensions of the deck are 10' x 13' ( 130 square feet).

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED; MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Richard Mahard,115 West Elm Street -sign

The applicant wishes to place a small informational plague next to the historical marker

already in place. It will describe why the home is on the historic register. The sign is to be a

standard 2.6 sq.ft, and the code limits a sign to 2 sq.ft. Mr. Mahard stated that the original

house has disappeared beneath the present structure, but is still worthy of being recognized. In

the basement one can see details of expert admen at work when the house was built. The

plague has to be this large in order to fit all the lettering in and be big enough to be read across

the street. Materials will match the Academy Building's plague next door. GPC members felt

the size was appropriate for the building.

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR A PLAQUE AND

VARIANCE AS SUBMITTED; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dan M. Rogers,210 East Maple Street -Front Porch

Mr. Rogers wishes to redo the front porch, changing the columns to 8' square futed ones,

add new pela windows matching the existing ones, and add a metal roof. Whoever put on the

roof did not flash it correctly, and rain has rotted the existing porch. A new floor will cover the

existing floor. The railing will be 36"high with square spindles and spiral detail. The ceiling will

be all varnished tongue and groove. They will add a second stain,vellb He will also replace the

house's siding with the closest material available and replace trim and\ pomer brackets.

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION No. P-99450 AS SUBMITTED; MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY AF}PROVED.

Old Business:

Dan Rogers,210 East Maple -Finding of Fact

Minor changes were made to the Finding of Fact for the Rogers Garage. Ms.Mason

produced a corrected copy,and members signed the corrected copy.,

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE FINDING OF FACT AS MODIFIED; MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: t

Jill Roberts,110 East Elm Street -Signs

Ms.Roberts presented her plans for signage at the old Booster shop. 1()Add white vinyl

house number to the door;2 ()Add names of the three tenants to the front door;3 ()Set up a

sandwich board now and then;4 ()Sonie kind of a jointt-enant sign. GPC members thought the

house number should not be part of the sign application

Some GPC members were unenthusiastic about the sandwich board, and it was

recommended to Ms. Roberts that she split the sign application in two parts. Members also

wanted to check the files to see what the owner of the property had in mind with his total plan,

and Ms.Wimbergerwill do so. Syl

Finding of Fact:

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A,B,D UNDER NEW BUSINESS

Jardine, Mahard, Rogers)AND A UNDER OLD BUSINESS ( Rogers)AS FORMAL FINDING OF

FACT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:8:50 p.m.

Next Meeting:June 14 and a special meeting to discuss the sign ordinance on June 3, 7 p.m.

GPC Minutes 5/10/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 10, 1999

Minutes

Members Present: Bernie Lukco, Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent: Jack Burriss, Bill Wemet

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden S( entinelJ),oan Hepsworth and Carolyn Carter

Minutes of April 26, 1999.

Page 3, On the Motion, Mr.Lukco voted Yes.

Page 3, 2d paragraph, line 2, add after "workshop"that's not part of his business.

Paragraph 3, Line 4, p'recedents-etting.'He also has concerns about the massing and scale of

the new building. He ....".

Page 2, change last paragraph to M' r.Salvage wanteda.d.m. inistrative action and

policy and is uncomfortable about reconsidering a change so substantially different from what

was approved by GPC. Mr.Salvage believes GPC should seek counsel of Village Council.

The applicant knew the building is not what was approvedN.e.x.t.to last line, h'e is going to

withdraw from consideration due to a personal conflict of interest:

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

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: Later in the meeting, a citizen requested information about making an

application.

NEW BUSINESS:All those who wanted to speak tonight were sworn in by the Chair en masse.

Joan Hepsworth and Carolyn Carter;NEW DAY SPA,1287 Cherry Valley Road

The applicants are requesting a change in the sign differing from the one originally

approved, They wish to install a permanent 30 sq.ft. ground sign in the front yard constructed of

a lightweight synthetic stone and a temporary sign to be hung across the permanent sign. The

temporary sign will say something like ' opening soon"and colors will be dark green letters on a

white background. Photographs and colors and materials were shown by Ms. Hepsworth at the

meeting.

Mr. Salvage thinks the sign is too big, although he likes the new design better and finds

it more traditional than the first one. Ms. Hepsworth will check to see if she can order a smaller

size. Other members agreed that the sign is too large. The 10 sci. ft. maximum will not include

the base nor the keystone.

The sign will be illuminated from the ground on one side and will be parallel to the road.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE SIGN

BEING REDUCED PROPORTIONATELY SO THAT THE FACE OF THE SIGN IS 10 SQ.FT.

OR LESS. THE FACE OF THE SIGN IS THAT AREA ABOVE THE BASE STONE AND

BELOW THE KEYSTONE. APPROVAL IS ALSO SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE VIILLAGE

PLANNER OF THE REVISED PLAN. ANY DEVIATIONS OF THE SIGN WILL BE SUBMITTED

TO THE GPC. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. WILKENFELD AND UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Dan Rogers and Barbara Franks, 210 East Maple Street -Finding of Fact Approval

Members discussed the Finding of Fact prepared by the Village Planner and had several

suggestions for strengthening it, particularly regarding the size and mass of the structure. It

would be important to stress the danger of precedent- setting in this situation. Members

requested a revised Finding of Fact for the next meeting.

1

2 GPC Minutes,May 10, 1999

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE THE FINDING OF FACT. MR. LUKCO

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: Signs

Mr. Myers has prepared a draft of a new sign code, and members discussed it in detail

and provided useful suggestions. Standards for areas beyond the village need to be developed.

Mr. Lukco suggested adding language about violations and enforcement.

Finding of Fact: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A UNDER NEW

BUSINESS (HEPSWORTH AND CARTER)AS FORMAL FINDING OF THE COMMISSION.

MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9:00 p.m.

Next Meetings: May 24 and June 14

GPC Minutes 4/26/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 26, 1999

Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Bernie Lukco, Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, William Wernet, Carl Wilkenfeld

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawden S(entinel)R,obert Seith, John Klein, Barbara Franks and Dan BRroygaenrsL,aBwre,NttoFramraisn, Jules Steinberg, Jim Harf,Ann Watson, Robin Bartlett, Marci McCaulay, Kennedy

Informal Workshop:Rufus Hurst, Law Director -S "tanding"

Anyone may speak at a public hearing where people are expressing opinions on rezoning. They are not giving testimony. Regarding a lot split, that is an administrative action and only people with standing may speak. This is testimony. If an individual has standing for an administrative hearing, the only time he should speak is during the hearing process. The chair determines when an administrative process is no longer productive. The applicant needs fair opportunity to present without interruption, as well as those with standing opposed to it. Then the applicant may refute after which time the chair closes the hearing. People may not speak directly to the applicant. GPC may ask any questions at any portion in the process. Mr.Hurst said they are working on devising more helpful language. If a person without standing cannot speak, he can appeal to V.C. In administrative hearings,we will recommend a court reporter be present for the record. The language defining Standing will include:the applicant, the owner of the property if not the applicant, a contiguous neighbor, a person claiming an injury or prejudice or deprived right in case the application is approved or denied. You need to show a direct relationship between the person and the outcome, rather than an abstract interest everyone has sintaint.diInfga, pGePrsCon without standing speaks and the decision is influenced by this person without may be in trouble.

The regular meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Myers.

Minutes of April 12, 1999. MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

NEW BUSINESS: All those who wanted to speak tonight were sworn in by the Chair en masse.

Robert Seith,116 Locust Place

Mr. Seith would like to change the siding on the house and reroof the porch, restore corner brackets and add gable returns, and enlarge the posts of the porch. Mr. Seith provided a helpful historical summary with pictures and said the current siding is too big and too plain. He will remove the old siding and reside with simulated cedar shingle. GPC approv6d his original application for posts but they are too small. He will dispose of the old asbestos properly. construcMtiorn. Lukco is comfortable and thought this a good time to undertake the project with the next door.

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

Brett and April Faris, 428 East College Street

The applicants wish to replace existing 40y-ear old slate roof with a new dimensional asphalt shingle roof. The porch roof will be shingled to match main roof. Mr. Faris showed a sample of shingle material.

GPC Minutes,April 26, 1299

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

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bryan Law,346 East College Street

Mr.Law wishes to add a second story onto the house, 8'x25',over the rear porch and

another section of the house, maintaining style of other porch. Pitch of the roof will match

existing roof.

MR.LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED; MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ann M. Watson,127 West Maple Street

Ms. Watson would like to add a 6' unpainted wood privacy fence in back of the house.

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

SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

OLD BUSINESS:

Granville Exempted Village School District,SE Comer of Granger and East College Streets

The application for lot split was tabled at the last meeting pending receipt of further

information on drainage. BZBA has approved the shared driveway conditional upon rezoning

approval.

Norman Kennedy stated that the School Board does not want to flood out the neighbors,

and their intention is to grade from SE to NE providing a gentle slope with catch basins. He

thinks a lot of water is flowing off East Broadway. He provided a grading plan, and it is attached

to these minutes.

Mr. Burriss arrived at this point.}

Robin Bartlett fears that this plan will create a dam and not solve the problem. But Mr.

Kennedy assured her it will be graded and drained properly.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR A LOT SPLIT SUBJECT TO THE

REVISED GRADING PLAN FOR ENTIRE LOT AS RECEIVED TONIGHT AND SUBJECT TO

APPROVAL OF REZONING BY VILLAGE COUNCIL. MR. LUKCO SECONDED, AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dan Rogers,210 East Maple Street

This application was tabled pending revised plans for the carriage house already built but

not according to approved plans. The applicant has submitted a pair of new elevation drawings

and prefers the one with fewer windows on the east side.

,§Lkn-

Mr. Salvage wanted to make a statement after giving this a lot of thought. He believes

that this situation crosses the line between administrative actionanu(nc*omfortable about 6

66 reconsiderinchgan.*ge* so substantially different from what was approved.aVfil*lage Council , needs to counser us. The applicant knew the buildingls not what was apprd< d.AAdr Myers said

this is a modification and whetheror not it has been built cannot enterourconsidlgrbtions. Wel1/1'

1eelt2:°1%1Z2*%St*tj'geanedshfoarpar2:n(ityudre.gr=

1%

ifti;)that. 0-f C

Mr. Lukco added that the Village Manager came to us seeking a solution so it is not necessary to h 01

return to V.C. Mr. Wernet stated that V.C. is aware of the fact that there is a modified U VCapplication

before GPC and V.C. anticipates GPC would apply the zoning ordinance for

guidance. If necessary, the applicant can appeal to V.C. Mr. Salvage concluded that if we are to

proceed, he is going to withdraw from consideration. If GPC wishes to make a motion to

recommend to V.C.to give us guidance, he will renain Consensus of the group was to continue, and Mr. Salvage withdrew.

Sl-Na =U

2

3

Barbara Franks stated that a fence to accommodate they are within variance requirements. She would like to add details of the siding the neighbors.The building will have electric heat,and she described about and of the wood pella windows. The lot is a slight slope so the house is 2' higher than the garage. Mr.Burriss asked for detail about corner boards and was told they will be there. He added that blind windows can be merely closed shutters although there are bnoalsahnuctete. rs on the house. The architectural style would allow them, but the windows should

Mr.Wilkenfeld thought the building was very massive and he asked about whether the tbhuoiuldginhgt tihsistoabveeuryseddifffiocrulat dbeucsiisnieosnssainncdewiat swotoullddNteon,dthtiossisethaispworrekschoepd.Mer.nLWt>ilk-e-*Pp«ufe4- ld-V z , . j ;4-v£--*,12 from wheMrer.wMeyebresgaagnr.eeTdheaybohuatvtehecodmiffpicroumlt issietudateiovneryaonndetowldhoaphpalsicpalnatysetdhibsywtahse arugleiasnat nledatpha t ' 40' #2.t- isnotfair,especiallytoneighbors. Theneighborsdidnotobjecttotheoriginalapprovedplans .I. JF but the situation is different now:He worries about precedents-etting and the massingrilihecUoh--,·** he recognizes the financial commitment of the applicant. He questiols whetherthis isf r*l 19 R>+= 3Ghemtehnindkmsetnhteoyrsahonuelwd raepvpieliwcaittioang.aiAn snienwceatphpeliycation would require new approval from BZBA and 2 i Barbara Franks stated are 2' from property line. she knows they did not build what was approved but Mr.Reyazi looked at it several times and expressed no disapproval. They did not try to hide the construction and she recognizes GPA's concerns about massing and the fact that it was not built as approved.

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH STIPULATIONS THAT:1 () A BLIND WINDOW ADDED ON THE NORTH ELEVATION CENTERED OVER LOWER ONES;2 ()TWO BLIND WINDOWS ADDED TO EAST ON A LINE WITH PROPOSED SECOND STORY WINDOWS;3 ()THE CORNER BOARDS BE ADDED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE ROLL CALL WAS A FOLLOWS: MR. BURRISSY- ES; MR. LUKCBO; *MR. WILKENFELDN- O; MR. MYERSN- O. A tie vote indicates a denial. YE3-

Finding of Fact:

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO ADOPE THE FINDING FOR A,B,C,D UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND A AND B UNDER OLD BUSINESS AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. Mr. LUKCO SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9:10 p.m.

Next Meeting: May 10 and 24

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.