Granville Community Calendar

GPC 09/13/99

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. Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
43

GPC 10/18/99

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 10/04/99

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
2

GPC 04/12/99

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 12, 1999
Minutes
Members Present: Bernie Lukco, Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, William Wernet, Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Jack Burriss
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Susan Bruns, Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Patricia Egan, Ray and
Heather Titley, Bob and Ruth Lisle, Rob Drake, Rochelle Steinberg, Wayne Davison,
Eileen and Kim Schoenenberger, Robin Bartlett, Marci McCauley, Maxine Montgomery,
Barbara Franks, Stan W. Musler, Sally Hannahs, Eloise DeZwarte
Minutes of March 22, 1999: Page 3, fourth line under Rogers: c"onstruction
of the addition to the house up now." -
Page 4, Add before the motion, T"he applicant verbally agreed to table the application."
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. SALVAGE
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLYAPPROVED.
Minutes of March 29: Page 1, Add to the first paragraph beginning with "Mr. Salvage."
He clarified that it was not his intention to make a recommendation but rather that that
Village Council should address the situation.
MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. SALVAGE
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Salvage thought the agenda should state that the Legislative Hearing is a Public
Hearing where people may speak. In an Administrative Hearing, only those with
standing may speak.
Citizens Comments: Rochelle Steinberg spoke on behalf of the neighborhood
committee on the old Middle School building, who want to know that their concerns
about drainage will be addressed. Standing water in the empty lot will bring on health
problems, mosquitoes, and ground\ sinking. Foundations of the houses may crumble.
Mr. Salvage responded that the parking lot has not been built yet and neighbors must
be patient.
Sally Hannahs added that their patience is wearing out. For the first time there
is water in her garage. Trees are standing in water and will die when water-logged.
Marci McCaulay showed photos of the standing water. Wayne Davison added his
concerns about ground-sinking, which prevents him from mowing. Ms. Wimberger
stated that the storm-water policy has been followed.
9
Norm Kennedy, from the School Board, said they had to rebid because
estimates were higher than they could accept..Now they have to wait until conditions
are suitable to do grading.
Mr. Myers encouraged everyone to attend school board meetings, but they have
already done this.
Update on Rogers property: They are researching siding and will have an updated th
application by April 19 . They are planning to have fake windows.
New Business:
The Art Project,204 Munson Street
The applicants received approval for a sign in November but they wish to
change it at this time to an angled ground sign, less than 10 square feet. This
constitutes two signs, so they are requesting a variance. They want to hide utility
feeder lines with lattice brace posts with flowers.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR THE SIGN AS
PRESENTED. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED BY VOICE VOTE.
Granville Exempted Village School District,Granger and East College Streets
All citizens who wished to speak were sworn in by the Chairman.
The School district wants to rezone from SRD-B to Village Residential District in
order to split the lot into three parcels for residential use. Norm Kennedy stated that
sizes of the three lots are compatible with the neighborhood, and the rezoning would be
contingent upon the lot split. The east side of Granger is SRD-B, while the west side
has VBD VRD, and SRD-B. Traffic would not significantly increase.
Rochelle Steinberg and the neighborhdod group discussed this and would
support a lot split only with contingentchayt-the drainage situation, water problems,
and grading be taken care of immediately. They are coming to GPC tonight to ask for
help rather than pursuing legal action.
Mr. Wilkenfeld is sympathetic to both sides and wants reassurance that
all codes be adhered with at the time of house construction. We have to be careful
about setting precedents.
Mr. Lukco has a problem with spot-zoning and thinks that the entire block
should be in the VBD, rather than SBD. Consistency is important.
2 1
Rob Drake added that historically a rezoning Salvage would be appropriate. Mr. added that changing to VRD places the area within Architectural Review.
Ms. Wimberger asked the Law Director whether the school could apply for
a lot split without plat, and he replied that it would be approved if it is rezoned. A lot split needs to be made contingent upon Village Council approval.
MR. LUKCO MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO VILLAGE COUNCIL THAT THE
PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COLLEGE AND GRANGER (SITE OF GMS)
OWNED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD, BE CHANGED FROM SRD TO VRD. MR.
WILKENFE.D SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY VOICE VOTE.
Granville Exempted Village School District,East College at Granger Street
The School Board wishes to split a portion of their lot into three lots for
residential use. By deed restriction, access to the lots will be limited, and the proposal
would be appropriate for the neighborhood.
Robin Bartlett would like to see this proposal made contingent upon
immediate improvement in the drainage situation. Eloise Dezwarte added that given
the water problems, they will likely have trouble selling the lots.
Ms. Wimberger added that this is a request for subdivision without plat,
and the GPC has authority to request additional information.
Mr. Myers has a concern about drainage on the flat land, which occurred
after the demolition and would like to see a topologicall drawing of the lots to aid our
understanding,He wants to see engineering drawings of both pre-and postdevelopment
plans, preliminary grading study, and drainage solution with storm- water
routing,He would like to see a complete plat drawing and to learn how these matters
will affect neighbors. Mr. Salvage requested Ms. Wimberger to submit this request in
writing to the School Board.
Norm Kennedy requested that this application be tabled.
MR. LUKCO MOVED TO TABLE UNTIL WE GET THE REQUESTED INFORMATION.
MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED. AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY
ROLL CALL.
Other matters: Fee Schedule: Ms. Wimberger will seek to analyze and compare the
zoning fee schedules from neighboring communities
Sign code: Mr. Myers is working on a new Sign Code. The intent was a code for the
entire village and environs. He has been working on an easy way to compute sizes of
3
signs. He ran criteria for each zoning district. Members would like to study this
document in detail.
Finding of Fact: MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A AND C
UNDER NEW BUSINESS (SCHOOL BOARD REZONING AND THE ART PROJECT)
AS FORMAL FINDING OF THE COMMISSION. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND
IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 9:15 p.m.
Next Meetings: April 26 and May 10, 1999
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4

GPC 04/26/99

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Alle

GPC 08/09/99

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4

GPC 08/16/99

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.
Respectfully submitted
Betty Allen

GPC 08/23/99

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 12/13/99

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<vergin,another neighbor w(ho was unable to attend the meeting tonight)had
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
5

GPC 02/08/99

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 8, 1999
Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss,Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers,William Wernet,Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Richard Salvage
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawden S( entinel)F,lo Hoffman,Dick Daley,Cynthia Con
Minutes of January 25: Under the paragraph beginning S" ome areas of concern,c"hange third
line to read The number of parking spaces.however...
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR.
BURRISS SECONDED,AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
New Business:
Granville Historical Society,Old Academy Building,103 West Elm
The Historical Society wishes to erect a standard 12'7"aluminum historical marker on the
Mdin Street side of the corner of the Academy Building property. The sign is approximately
12.69 sq.ft. in area,the standard state historical marker size and sign. The Longaberger Company
has awarded some funds to help with the project. Such signs are exempt from review if they are
under 8 sq.ft.,but in the interest of historical importance,this one should be approved.
Mr. Daley,Ms. Con,and Ms. Hoffman spoke to the value of communicating the character
ofthe building,particularly in light ofthe bicentennial celebrations upcoming. The sign will give
complete documentation ofthe site.
MR. BIJRRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS PROPOSED. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Election of Officers: Mr. Myers officially welcomed Mr. Lukco to the GPC and assured him this
will be an interesting experience. He reminded him that he needs to be sworn in by the Mayor.
MR. BURRISS NOMINATED MR. MYERS AS CHAIR,SEEING THAT HE HAS
SERVED AS VICE CHAIR AND HAS DEALT WITH DIFFICULT SITUATIONS
WITH DIPLOMATIC SKILLS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. WERNET NOMINATED MR. WILKENFELD AS VICE CHAIR. MR. LUKCO
SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Other Business:
Ms. Wimberger initiated a discussion about whether company logos, colors,or names
should be considered "promotional material"on traffic directional signs. Members agreed that
they should be,and any such material proposed for directional signs must be reviewed.
Members discussed whether such signs should be part ofthe total signage package,and
their indecision suggested that a short workshop would be in order. Mr. Myers will provide Ms.
Wimberger with a copy of the New Albany Sign Code.
It was also decided to talk further about procedures for the conduct of hearings,especially
in light of recent decisions on Administrative vs. Legislative hearings and determining just who
has standing. Anyone can speak in Citizens Comments,but ifthey arrive late,they may lose their
opportunity. Maybe,before the discussion starts, the Chair could ask whether anyone else has
standing. Mr. Myers asked that the Law Director draft a short paragraph which he can read it
before Citizens Comments. Mr. Lukco asked whether people could be sworn-in in writing on a
form.
Another item of discussion concerned who should be notified prior to a hearing. Hearings
are published in the Sentinel but not everyone reads them. Some neighborhoods have a
designated "watcher"who will notify others when an item oflocal interest is on the agenda. Mr.
Lukco offers to work on modifying the code regarding notification. Mr. Myers said Ms.
Wimberger is doing a great job and must have at least a week to prepare for a hearing.
Mr. Myers summarized the discussion. It was agreed to meet at 7 p.m. next time and
begin discussion on: 1( )Notification,2 ()Tightening signage ordinance,and 3( )How to
determine "standing." Mr. Wernet thought the Village Council would be amenable to our
thoughts on these matters.
Adjournment: 8: 15 p.m.
Next Meetings February 22 and March 8
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
GPC 2-8-99 minutes
2

GPC 02/22/99

GRANI'ILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 22, 1999
Minutes
Afembers Present. Jack Burriss, Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers, Richard Salvage,William Wernet Alembers Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present: Kathryn Winiberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Dan Rogers
Infoi-mal Workshop on Procedures
Mr. Myers has looked at procedures for other conimiinities, and tonight he, presented a
general framework he has worked out for our consideration, which basically can be described as follows:
1 }Villagil'Flbnnk]PIAtroduces the
application.
2 The :AptiI:ida{fit::des¢fibesjthelproj eLL
3 }Citizeh*h}t.d}@nvitdd· to speak.
4, }GRC·[]} ta'kes , over, ·add questions: ·can j]be
diked Of the abplicant.
5 ;Bl@@ Or } . sliburbs{ I call], ];upon each
tommiss'idn meb»681}}by} name }td ask} To}r ]bomments.
6 A. hiotion·}}and[·the: 11.voteb·y,]}:r!}o; ll call,
ilphabet}ically,Iw:i·th· lchairman; polled· last.
Miixutes of Februaty 8
MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS
SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROE\D-.
Citizens Coniments: None
Old Business:
Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street
The applicant was sworn in by the Chair.
Ms. Wimberger stated that the application toi fi detached two-story garage v.as approved
in July of 1997, but the structure does not appear to have been blli|t according to the plans on file.
She has received complaints about massing from neighbors.
C
GRANVILLE
PLANNINGZ &ONING
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Seth-
DATE: June 5, 2002 -
SUBJECT: Procedure for Considering an Application
il
Richard approached me several weeks ago about trying to locate the minutes from the
Planning Commission meeting where a procedure for considering applications was discussed and earlier this week he sent me a memo of his recollection of the procedure adopted by the Planning Commission.
In the February 22, 1999 minutes of the Planning Commission I located an informal
workshop on procedures. At that time, Keith Myers had researched other communities
and made the proposal shown on the top page of the attached sheet. On the bottom side
of the attached sheet is Richard's recollection of the procedure that was adopted.
I was unable to find in the minutes where a motion was made to adopt the procedure as shown in the minutes and/ or Richard's memo. If you read Richard's memo we basically
do that anyway,but I think it would be important to reconfirm in the form of a motion a
set procedure for considering applications,using Richard's memo as a place to start or
something to adopt. Section 8.01 of the Charter for the Village of Granville states that ".
The Commission shall adopt its own rules and elect its officers annually. .C .l"early the
Commission can adopt a procedure for considering applications and other such policies
as may be necessary.
141 East Broadway •P.O. Box 514 Granville,Ohio 43023 •740.587.0707 • FAX 587.0128
06: 03/2002 19: 22 FAX 7405224043 Rlchard Salvage
0002
2.
3.
4.
Granville Planning Commission
Ppeeedure for Considering an Application
1. Introduction of application by the Planner.
a. Description of the request
b. Explanation of problems with the zoning code
Comments and explanations by opplicarrt or representatives
Questions by GPC members on technical aspects of application
Public comments and questions by irrterested parties
4 Must be addressed to the GPC
b. Make your point
c. No questions directly to applicant
d. No longer than three minutes per person
e. Comments must be made at this time
biscussion by GPC members
0 Further questions of applicant
b. biscussions ando/r negotiations with applicant
c. Comments by GPC members
6. Action by GPC
a. Approval
b. Approval wth conditions
c. Denial
d. Tabling for future considerationa (pplicant request)
5

GPC 01/11/99

GRANVILLE PLANNINGCOMMS[SION
January 11, 1999
Minutes
Members Present:Jack Burriss,Keith Myers,Richard Salvage Members Absent: Gary Stansbury,William Wernet,Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: none
In the absence ofthe Chair,Mr.Myers served as Acting Chair. }
Minutes ofDecember 28: Page 1 under Visitors,change Robert Crowley to Tim Crowley. MR„BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR- SALVAGE SECONDED,AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments:None
New Business:
Jean R.Hoyt,117 Locust Place
Ms.Wimberger,in the absence ofthe applicant,stated that Ms.Hoyt wishes to install a gravel driveway,50.6'x 10',connecting to Locust Place behind the First Presbyterian Church,on the northern side ofthe property,10'from property line. There will be a paved 16'apront a( ie)ring to 10 feet wide) at the base ofthe entry. The Village Service Director has recommended that it be paved at least 8' into the yard. Avariance is necessary for parking in the front yard. If she moved it farther to the north,she would still need a variance for side yard setback.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO
IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SERVICE DIRECTOR MR BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A UNDER NEW BUSINESS
HOYT)AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR BURRISS SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment 7:45 p.m
Next Meetings: January 25 and February 8
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 01/25/99

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 25 1999
Minutes
Members Members Present: Jack Burriss,Keith Myers,Richard Salvage,Gary Stansbury,Carl Wilkenfeld Absent. William Wemet
Also Present. Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Gary Zay,Wayne Young,Amaresh Patel
Minutes ofJanuary 11:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. MYERS SECONDED,AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Work Session:
Ashish Diwanji,South Galway,
The applicant wishes to build a 51-room Holiday Inn Express hotel without restaurant,behind
Wendys' . Gary Zay, Architect, explained the plans,saying this is a new prototype, an upscale hotel with a grand staircase,not a place designed for truckers. They plan to have a brick exterior on first oor and stucco on the second. This would need a conditional use variance
GPC members compared the plans to the ordinance ( 1175.03)and found many areas of
concern,so many,in fact,that the applicants were advised to try to purchase more land to fit the hotel
into the location. Consensus agreed that at this time they could not approve this concept.
Some areas of concern were density,lot coverage,building orientation,maximum single0 tenant, lot size, open space, shared access road, hours of operation, signage for a flag lot. Many of
these concerns would need variances. The parking,however,would appear to be in conformancef. , *
full and cMomr.pMleyteerasndreicnohmamrmenodneyd that if/ApplicaA come back with an application,the plans must be with all ordinances.
Mr. Myers stated that open space need not be contiguous to an applicant's lot.
Tribute: A final motion was made by Mr. Myers, asking Village Council to grant a resolution to
Gary Stansbury for his service as chairman. Mr. Salvage seconded the motion, and Mr. Wilkenfeld
added that Mr. Stansbury has done an excellent job.
Adjournment: 8:35 p.m.
Next Meetings February 8 and 22
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 07/12/99

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)ADJOURNMEN

GPC 07/26/99

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 06/17/99

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 06/28/99

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 03/08/99

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 8,1999
Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss,Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers,Richard Salvage, William Wernet, Cart
Wilkenfeld
Also Presen't: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Larry Sargent, Wes Sargent, Scott Rawden ( Sentinel)
Informal Workshop: -Subinission and Application Requirements
Mr. Lukco presented the draft drawn up by the committee as follows:
1. Residential Application Check List
2. Zoning and Architectural Permit Application
3. InformationE/xplanation List
4. Samples of Architectural Drawings
5. Fees
6. Resources ( Addresses, contacts, etc.)
Discussion centered on the following:
A. In No. 1, add ( when applicable)
B. M r. Salvage suggested that a building certificate should be submitted to Ms. Wimberger.
Perhaps a work session with the Newark Building Code people could be planned.
C. Mr. Wernet suggested tliat Ms. Wimberger draft a list of changes that we want and give it to
Village Council..She will draft such a memo.
D. There should be a follow-up procedure and hire someone to do the inspections of properties
being improved.
E. A Certificate of Occupancy should be shown to Ms. Wimberger.
F. Withhold the window certificate until the building permit is seen.
0» 0
tKZG199F£/p7(.
Mr.em *et thanked the subcominittee for all their good work,and Mr. Wernet agreed.
The regular meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Myers.
Minutes of February 22,1999. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: Mr. Salvage asked whether Mr. Burriss was sworn in,and since he was not,Mr.
Wernet thought that all previously approved motions should be ratified to make them legal. Mr. Myers
preferred to leave that question up to the Law Director,and Ms. Wimberger will ask him for a memo to
that effect.
Y
1
New Business:
Harold Sargent, 133 South Pearl Street
The two Sargent sons were sworn in.
Mr. Sargent is requesting a temporary wheelchair- accessible ramp on the Elm Street side. The
railing and spindles will be smooth cedar and the deck, ramp,and curbs will be pressure-treated lumber.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED. MR.
SALVAGE SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED WITH ONE ABSTENTION
MR. BURRISS).
Finding of Fact: Mr. Salvage moved to adopt the finding for A under New Business (Sargent)as formal
Finding ofFact. Mr. Wilkenfeld seconded, and it was unanimously approved.
Adjournment: 7:45 p.in.
Next Meeting: March 22 atid April 12
Respectfully Submitted,
Betty Allen
2

GPC 03/22/99


modify remove organize post follow up  

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 22,1999
Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss,Bernie Lukco,Richard Members Salvage,William Wernet,Carl Wilkenfeld Absent:Keith Myers
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawden S( entinel)V,irginia King,Laura Andujar,D.W.King,Frederick Leary, Diana Parini,Waite Carlisle, Sam MackenzieC- rane,Sharon Sellitto,Stan Levin,Steve Contini,Barbara Franks, Jean and Bob Mason,Dan Rogers
Minutes of March 8: Page 1, after F: change to"Mr.Mvers agreed."
MR.LUCKO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR.BURRISS
SECONDED,AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: Sharon Sellitto was sworn in and stated she had to leave before the Rogers
application was considered,and she wanted to express her concern about his structure. She had spoken to the intern in the Planning Z&oning office p(rior to Ms.Wimberger's start date)and had written a letter
of objection to the massive size of the building.
New Business:
Denison University,Monomoy,204 West Broadway
The college would like to add window boxes on the front two windows similar to those on the
side,the same color and trim.
MR.BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS PROPOSED. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Waite Carlisle,424 East College Street
The applicant would like to install two air conditioning units on the west side directly adjacent to
the driveway of the neighbor. The units would face the units of the neighbor. There are two trees but no
bushes for screening,but they will plan landscaping in the future.
MR.BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITI'ED. MR.LUKCO SECONDED,
AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Stephen and Teresa Contini,210 Sunrise Street
The applicants wish to add a front porch and a bedroom and a breakfast nook in the rear. He
stated that this is a Sears home built over fifty years ago and they want to keep the style consistent with
the architecture and use the same materials as much as possible. The three-season porch will have
windows on three sides. Asphalt roof shingles will match current materials. At the base the skirt will be a
stone facade. At the front this would be about 1foot high and tie in with chimney and it would be about
272 feet on the sides. They would move air conditioning units to the north side in a niche.
Mr. Burriss asked for details about the roof,and Mr.Contini stated that the roof is at a different
angle and will appear flatter and have no gable. A roof of minimum slope may not be able to
accommodate shingles. Mr. Burriss felt that the richness of the architecture might be lost with addition of
1
a wide porch. The porch will have trim between the windows and sides. and false columns will decorate the front The porch would place the dwelling in line with its neighbors.
Mr. Burriss also recommended retaining special features to preserve the richness there now and asked whether the special keystone centered over the door would be repeated over the new door,and Mr. Contini thought it would be possible to preserve it.Mr.Salvage added that the drawings do not show trim around the windows,nor sculptured trim,nor columns. He recommended duplicating detail below all new windows. He recommended consideration of a metal roof and the Village Planner can approve final material and color.
MR.SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1)TRIM 2-3 INCH WIDTH BE INSTALLED AROUND EACH OF THE WINDOWS;2 ()
SCULPTURED TRIM SIMILAR TO WHAT IS THERE ON ALL THE CORNERS VISIBLE FROM
EITHER STREET;3 ()EXISTING SCULPTURED DETAIL BE RELOCATED OVER NEW FRONT
DOOR;4 ()RECTANGULAR TRIM DETAILS CURRENTLY BELOW THE WINDOWS BE
DUPLICATED AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE BELOW WINDOWS ON WEST AND SOUTH SIDE OF
THE HOUSE;5 ()THAT THE APPLICANT BE GIVEN OPTION OF HAVING ROOFING MATERIAL
AND COLOR ABOVE THE NEW PORCH BE APPROVED BY VILLAGE PLANNER. MR.LUKCO
SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
James andAmanda Hudgens,124 West Maple Street
The applicants wish to extend and redo porch across the front and attach a 16 foot two-car garage
with wooden door and bedroom on west side of house,matching existing materials. Applicant will need a
variance from BZBA. The applicants are not present tonight,but there were other interested citizens on
hand and they were sworn in en masse.
Edith Schories,nextd-oor neighbor 1(28 WestMaple)h,ad written a letter and spoke tonight of
her strong opposition to the project for the following reasons: 1( )The homes are already too close
Jogether and this project with its 1 foot setback would remove morning and afternoon sunlight from her
carefully cultivated gardens and deprive her of daylight required for her eyes. 2 ()Runo- ff from the roof
would land in her driveway and freeze with no sun available to thaw the ice. The dampness would also
enter her basement;3 ()an undesirable tree close to property line,added to the runo- ff,makes for added
mustiness and gutterc-logging;4 ()fire hazard from too close a building;5 ()disputed property line;6 ()
diminished property value and quality of life.
MR.LUKCO MOVED TO ATI'ACH THIS LETTER TO THE MINUTES,MR. SALVAGE SECONDED
AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Frederick Leary added that the real issue is architectural review: The garage would be too close
to the street. All neighbors are in agreement that they would not want this addition. Such a project would
diminish property values not only in the neighborhood but throughout the Village.
He thought Mr. Hudgens could plan the garage in the back yard.
Jean Mason stated that the project is too close and too crowded. The Masons built their one-car
garage to conform as close as possible to code and approving such a big project is unacceptable.
Mr. Lukco stated that (1)surveys in the Village are often in question,but the fence-line is
probably appropriate as benchmark. 2 ( )We have a responsibility that any additions or buildings will
improve and upgrade the historic district,and he can not believe this design would improve the character
of the neighborhood. 3 ()He also has a problem with the garage in front of the house. 4 ( )The massing is
not appropriate. He would be opposed to the application.
t>
2
Mr. Burriss said that West Maple has a nice consistency give attention to the architectural richness among the buildings on the lots. People and try to maintain the historical character. The proposed addition and massing ignores that relationship completely.
Mr.Salvage felt that there may be a better way to accomplish what the applicant wants without impacting the neighbors. Also the property line issue should be cleared up.
Mr.Wernet thinks that whatever the true property line is,the project is too close to it. Also, the wide suburban garage door is not appropriate with the neighborhood.
Mr. Wilkenfeld thinks the best way for citizens to do these things is in concert with neighbors
before coming to GPC,which was not done in this case. He agrees with his colleagues.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED;MR. LUKCO
SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS REJECTED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.
Old Business:
Dan Rogers,210 East Maple Street
The applicant was asked to provide a modification of his application,since the structure was not
built according to the approved plan. There is a wide discrepancy in the total footprint,and the
architectural design is very different. Although irrelevant to this application,the two years available for
construction is pu now. Three citizens were sworn in.
Ad 6 <1 f b /
Mr. Rogers stated that what he was hearing was (1)that property values would be diminished
and ( 2)that the new construction is not authentic. But that is why he bought the house: to restore it to
the way it was or should be. He is doing all the work himself and that it why it is taking over two years.
The garage is going to match the house. He changed the roof- line to make it authentic and improve
property value. When he is done,it is going to be worth more than others on the block and look like a
true carriage house. His mistake was in not coming back to GPC with changes in plans. He will put in a
brick driveway later. Siding will be milled to match the house and he will rebuild the front porch. There
will be no rental above the garage,and the garage is for his truck.
Sharon Sellitto sympathizes with Mr. Rogers' predicament but is concerned that the garage is
bigger and closer to the properly line than intended but does not see how to correct it at this time.
Mr. Lukco felt the original design was appropriate but it would be a hardship to change back
now.
Mr. Salvage does not think GPC would have approved this design because of the massing and
preferred the original saltbox effect.
Mrs. Rogers said it is not very pretty now but it will look really authentic when they are done.
She says it is 2 feet off properly line. The original variance was for 1 foot.
Ms. Wimberger has heard complaints from other neighbors,and Mr. Wilkenfeld has also.
Mr. Burriss added that what was approved was very appropriate. It would have been similar in
scale to other buildings in the neighborhood with story and a half in front and 1 story in back. The new
plan is a slightly smaller version of the house;other neighborhood outbuildings are quite different from
this plan. He is thinking now about compromises,and is very troubled by the fenestration patterns. Mrs.
Rogers said the neighbor wanted no windows on his side,but Mr. Burriss said they could add false
3
windows. He asked the applicants to look at Monomoy Annex b(ehind 204 West Broadway)T.his new building before the Commission is no longer a rustic outbuilding and needs to be less massive.
Mr.Wilkenfeld had two concerns: 1( )It does not matter whether the building was inspected;the applicant made an agreement and gave us his word and then did something different. That puts us in a difficult position to find a way to correct what has been done. 2 ( )GPC is fearful of setting a bad precedent by this application.
Mr. Salvage is also concerned about ( 1)precedent- setting and does not want people to cite
financial problems if it has to be changed. 2 ()He appreciates a lot ofwhat Mr.Burriss has stated and
hopes the applicants can come back with elevations everyone can live with. 3()He would like to see more
neighbors here,rather than remaining anonymous. 4 ()More details are needed,i.e.,chimney and heating
system. 5 ( )He does not think this is a flat roof in the middle. 6 ( )He does not think the recessed door fits
there in the corner.7 ()This project needs to fit the historic architectural district. A compromise is needed
but GPC does not have one. The responsibility is on Mr. Rogers to determine where we are going.
Mr. Lukco summarized his concerns: 1 ()Wants to see some kind of a site plan showing
neighbors' houses and the alley in detail and to scale.2 ( )We need Mr.Rogers to tell us what it willlook
like. We need to see a scale drawing showing details,windows,brackets,moldings,etc., for each side.
3)Applicant did not do what he was supposed to do,so it is up to him to come up with an acceptable
plan.
Mr. Wernet is also concerned about precedent- setting;it is not fair to others who do follow the
rules. Anyone who feels impacted by this project could force the Village to take steps.
d'MR. LUKCO MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR ITEMS A,B,C,AND D UNDER NEW
BUSINESS AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR.LUKCO SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 10: 15 p.m.
Next Meetings: April 12 and April 26
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4
4
Edith A. Schories
128 West Maple Street
Granville, Ohio 43023-1139
587- 0734
To the
Planning and Zoning Department
141 East Braodway
Granville, Ohio 43023-0514
Kathryn Wimberger
Village Planner
Dear Ms. Wimberger,
March 18, 1999
Exwl Bi TA 0
Thank you kindly for your letter of March 8, 1999 on Hudgens's request for a
variance to Village Ordinance section 1159.03 to permit construction of
a two-story, 20 foot wide garage and room addition with only a one foot setback
from our common property line to my east,instead of the required 10 foot
setback.
Apparently,Mr. Hudgens applied to you,notified all the neighbors and then
came to me last,Tuesday, March 9, 1999, after dark,one day before I
received your notification, to be precise.
I was the last to know.
In telling of his plans, he told me the required setback was 6 feet. The next
day I called your office and learned the required setback is 10 feet, indeed!
I told him his plan was not acceptable to me.
The Hudgens's proposed two-story,20 foot wide building, one foot from the
property line would deprive the long east side of my house and front porch of the
light and warmth of the morning sun, resulting in higher heating bills for one
thing. The sun is essential there. And just as important to me is the sunlight
inside the entire east half of my house,as I have already had 3 eye operations and
need bright light to see.
Besides,we bought this house precisely because of all the sunshine in the
eastrooms in the first place;the two-story house on my westside was already
sitting only 13' 3"away,barring 80 percent of the afternoon sun.
This matter is of the greatest importance to me,not only for my health,but
also for the preservation of the over 100 year old house and of the plantings along
the house and driveway which require full sun and good drainage. They
represent no small cost in dollars and labor.
2.)There is another concern about this project: The run-off in a downpour
from the applicant's and my roof,combined,would threaten my basement.
And in January, my driveway is sheer ice already, the shade from
his proposed building together with the increased run-off and snow from
both our roofs would let the melting snow seep more slowing into my foundation,
making the basement damp and musty.
3.)Futhermore,behind the applicant's house is a maple tree, the wrong
maple for a small yard,and way too close to their house and my house. It is
the kind of maple that will grow huge and has the nasty habit of losing it's huge
leaves after I had my gutters cleaned, already twice in the fall. Invariably,
it stops up my gutters,when it is already cold. And in a storm the water comes
down in streams onto my backsteps, rushes around the corner and into my
driveway. Combine that with the Hudgens's run- off and you get the picture. This
creates an unnecessary cost for me every year,ever since the applicants allowed
this seedling to grow into a tree. As this tree grows, it will hang over the
applicants roof,and possibly mine, fungus will thrive,moisture will linger,
carpenter ants and termites won't be far behind,all adding to the problems the
proximity of the applicants addition will create.
4.)Further on,a garage poses an added fire hazard;for it to be 1 foot from
my property line makes me uncomfortable.
5.)Besides, in their drawing the applicants state 11'7"for the width of my
side yard to "their"property line, while I measure 14'4"from my house wall to
the old rusty iron fence post which is a remnant of the old hog fence that existed
when we moved into my house in 1963. Of the many previous owners of 124 W.
Maple,NO ONE ever disputed this fence being the property line. The hog fence
most likely dates back to the 1880's when my house was built.
They also have omitted presenting a drawing of a side view of their proposed
20' wide addition. While they show a number for my side of the fence,
their drawing does not show a number for the distance from their house to the
fence,or "their"property line$?Does this mean they want to slice 2'9"
from the side of the entire yard?My yard is 50' wide,I have the deed.
All the above would cause me great discomfort,greatly diminish the value
of my property and the quality of living in it,while probably raising my property
taxes,due to the increased value of the applicant's house.
1
Nobody would call this a fair deal.
This house is my home. In the 36 years that I have lived in it I have striven
to make it an asset to the community, by keeping it in good taste
and in good repair. My garden was on the Granville garden tour in 1994
to help raise money for our new street lighting. I have thousands of dollars
and work hours in this garden. I myself wanted a garden shed dearly, but
did not want to offend the view and wanted to comply with the zoning laws.
The Hudgens have other options: I agree to a on-floor garage,the required
10 feet from my property line provided the building not take any sunlight away
from pre-existing structures on my property. No second floor.
Preconditions to any construction are: An undisputed property line, agreed to by
both parties;the Hudgens, myself and my heirs,arrived at by first class surveys,
if necessary of the whole block, since pins are scarce,by licensed, professional
surveyors at the expense of the applicants.
Our village setback ordinance of 10 feet is here for a reason, and well thought
out,and necessary, so nobody infringes on other people rights, and
encroaches on their property.
I do not infringe on others' rights, and I don't want others to infringe on
mine.
This request,to turn a required setback of 10 feet into a one foot setback,
flies into the face of the law and makes a mockery of it. Approving this request
would be setting a bad precedent, indeed!
Trusting in your knowledge,experience, fairness,and wisdom, I respectfully
ask you to deny the Hudgens the one foot variance and the construction
of a two-story high,20 foot wide building, as planned.
Sincerely,
2062 .«Sr**
Edith A. Schorie

GPC 03/29/99

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 29,1999
Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Bernie Lukco,Richard Salvage
Members Absent: Keith Myers,William Wernet,Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: none
Minutes of March 29,1999: Consideration postponed until a regular meeting.
Citizens Comments: none
New Business:
Recommendation to Village Councilfor assistance with zoning inspections
Mr. Lukco described the plan arrived at by Ms. Wimberger and himselfto write a position
description for a Zoning Inspector who would help the Village Planner in checking on projects once they have been approved to ensure that they are fulfilling the approved application criteria. He had
questions about the hours that would be required and thought one day,or maybe two,per week
would be a good starting point. This person could go over the records for the past two years and
see that projects have proceeded appropriately.
Ms. Wimberger added that the recommendation should include a rationale as to why this
person is needed and explain how his/ her day would go.
Mr. Burriss suggested showing them the controversial Rogers garage,but Mr. Lukco
thought examples should remain anonymous.
Mr. Salvage stated that since Ms. Wimberger does not have enough time to satisfy this
portion of her position description,the work of checking on projects should be satisfied by
acquiring a building permit from Newark because part ofthat approval is an inspection process so
we would be assured what is being done is appropriate and built accordingly. The applicant pays
through fees through the building department so it does not cost us anything. However,at this
time,this letter to Council is not to address the interior inspections,but the exterior,so the building
code department wouldn't necessarily be involved in these inspections being discussed this evening.
Mr. Salvage also thinks it may be impossible to find a part-time applicant and suggested a
summer intern. In any case, such a person should be compensated through fees. He suggested a
few changes to the cover memo. Ms. Wimberger will retype it and get needed signatures before
sending it to Village Council.
Mr. Lukco thought possibly a retired person with experience in the area might apply for
such a job.
1
1 2
Mr. Lukco suggested that input,but others a representative from GPC might attend BZBA meetings to give preferred to keep both groups independent and just get together for work sessions
or share minutes when appropriate.
MR. BURRISS MOVED THAT GPC RECOMMEND TO VILLAGE COUNCIL TO
ADDRESS THE INSPECTION ISSUE. MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8:20 p.m.
Next Meetings: April 12 and April 26, 1999
Respectfully submitted
Betty Alle

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.