GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
1) CALL TO ORDER
2) ROLL CALL
3) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A) July 12, 1999
4) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
5) NEW BUSINESS
A)Debra Llewellyn-415 East Broadway
Zoning & Architectural Permit Application -deck
B)Terry &Sue Van Offeren -210 South Mulberry Street
Zoning & Architectural Permit Application -garage
C) Art PietrafesaT &ruet McDowell -204 South Pearl Street
Zoning & Architectural Permit Application -second level addition
D) Bank First National -222 East Broadway AJA
Zoning & Architectural Permit Application -Other structures
6) OLD BUSINESS
A) Dan Rogers -210 East Maple Street
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
qr--Q-Ch)- I «
t1 Do) -
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Gl'C .iii,Jures. jul.9 26. 1999
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.
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
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.
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.
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION