Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes 4/12/1999

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

GPC Minutes 3/22/1999

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

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,

Edith A. Schories

GPC Minutes 3/8/1999

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 and April 12

GPC Minutes 2/22/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 22, 1999

Minutes

MMeemmbbeerrss APbresseenntt JCacakrlBWurirlkisesn,Bfeerlndi.e,

Also Present KathrynWimbergVeilla

Informal Workshop on Procedures

Mr Myers has looked at procedures for other communities,and tonight he presented a fgoelnloewrasl framework he has worked out for our consideration,which basically can be described as

1. Village Planner introduces the application.

2. The applicant describes the proJect.

3. Citizens are invited to speak.

4. GPC takes over, and questions can be asked of the applicant.

5. Bigger suburbs call upon each

commission member by name to ask for comments.

6. A motion and the vote, by roll call,

alphabetically, with chairman polled last.

1

Minutes of February 8

MR LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED MR BURRISS

SECONDED AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Citizens Comments None

Old Business

Dan Rogers,210 East Maple Street

The applicant was sworn in by the Chair

Ms Wimberger stated that the application for a detached two-story garage was approved

in July of ]997, but the structure does not appear to have been built according to the plans on file

She has received coniplaints about massing from neighbors

Mr. Rogers stated that Reza Reyazi came by a number not mention that oftimes and approved it and did a change requires approval. The change was done to match the house.

GPC members asked about the footprint,the height,the appearance,materials,and the new roofline,and Mr. Salvage thought the structure was awfully large and he is not sure it would have been approved the first time around. Ms. Wimberger said she would check with Mr. Reyazi. Mr. Wernet thought that to avoid confusion we should have drawings showing current plan so we know what we are approving

Mr. Myers stated that ignoring the changes Mr. Rogers has made would be unfair to other people who work hard to get plans approved. He should be required to submit new plans. He would also have to reapply for rear and side yard setback variances from BZBA,but Mr. Lukco stated the current setbacks adhere to the variances granted. Mr. Myers thought the fees should be

waived.

Mr. Rogers agreed to submit a modification ofhis plans.

He is required to also submit drawings with height, mnaterials, and photographs.

This action is considered advisory, and the applicant and the Village Planner will work together to complete this task. Consensus of the group agreed.

Granville Historical Society,Old Academy Bitilding, 103 West Elm ·

The Finding ofFact for the Historical Society was not approved at the previous meeting, and will be approved at this time.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT AS FORMAL

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION. MR. LUKCO SECONDED, AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Amendment of Motion for Nominatio, 1

Mr. Salvage noted that at the last meeting, Mr. Wernet nominated a candidate for Vice

Chair but as Mr. Wernet is a nonvoting member, someone else must do it.

MR. LUKCO NOMINATED MR. WILKENFELD AS VICE CHAIR. MR. BURRISS

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

St,bmission a,id Applicatio, 1 Requirenie, its

1. Changes in approved plans. Members discussed what to do in the case of "willfull

negligence"and how it should be handled {refer to Rogers situation, above}F.or applications in

tlie AROD, Mr Salvage suggested the permit say something like "Any changes must be submitted

for approval."

2. Zonine Permit. Mr. Burriss liked the idea of a prominently displayed laminated

2

Zoning Permit"on construction premises. Zoning which Permits differ from Building Certificates, zoningapreeramciqtsuicreoduldinbNeecwaallrekda n"d are for utilities,etc. Expiration dates could be added. Maybe ZoningA/rchitectural Permit."

3. Application forms. Ms. Wimberger,Mr.Burriss,and Mr. Lukco met and devised Bsoumilediidnegas/ for improvements. They put together a packet ofinformation to go with the, Zoning permit.

4. Building Permits. Maybe we need a system to ensure a person gets a building permit. Ms. Wimberger does receive reports quarterly about building permits. It would be nice to have a Zoning Inspector to check on building sites. That person could be sure the project has been started within a year.

5. Submission of Applications. The three-person group is working on a user- friendly sample packet showing the steps applicants must follow,i.e.,the timing,how to get a building permit, how to reproduce blueprints, sample site plans. The application process should be

streamlined,perhaps with a flowchart. Tell applicants the permittedc/onditional uses and direct them to the proper chapter.

6. Appearance. What should the application look like?Mr. Wernet likes a lot of white

space. Maybe the different forms could be color- specific.

7. Fees. Consider separating the commercial and the residential applications in the

planned districts. A planned district is forever. Fees could be based on acreage. Ms. Wimberger

will telephone other communities to see how they base their charges.

Adjournment: 9:00 p. m.

Next Meetings: March 8 and March 22

GPC Minutes 2/8/1999

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

GPC Minutes 1/25/1999

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

GPC Minutes 1/11/1999

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

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.