Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes 12/11/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 11,2000

Minutes

DRAFT

Members Present:Jack Burriss, Barbara Lucier, Keith Myers,Richard Salvage,Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: None

Also Present:Seth Dorman, Village Planner -

Visitors Present: C.K. Barsky, Suzie Muir, Linda Schwarz,Bob Hill, Leta Ross, Bob Gerano, Roger

Kessler,Miles Waggoner,Frank Murphy,Phil Markwood, Steve Cramer

Citizens' Comments:None

The Chair swore in ali those who planned to speak.

The meeting opened at 7 p.m.for a Work Session on Welcome to Granville Signs:

Mr. Myers showed the group renderings of the Welcome To Granville sign package based on

everything agreed,upoil to date; including the sign mounted lower.on. the posts so that the postss.,tick up ,

a little higher and the return to the oval window for the center graphic. Mr. Myers also showed a

sketch of the posts with the base and cap details. Ms. Barsky noted that the lettering should be in the

Garamond font, and Mr. Myers explained that his person pulled the wrong lettering style. Mr. Myers

said he could email the sign rendering with the Garamond font and the " Settled in 1805"text at the

bottom of the sign to everybody in the group.-

Considerable discussion occurred relative to what Mr. Myers presented the group, and the

following conclusions were made with respect to the final sign:

Color Scheme: Green letters on a white background

1.- Posts: Dark Green

Sign Border: Dark Green

Center Graphic: Oval Window

Lettering: Garamond Font

As for the hanging sign, it was determined to be just like the main Welcome To Granville sign, only

smaller, and would be mounted on a green post with a black bracket, and hanging off short chains to

allow for some movement.

Mr. Myers said he would email the rendering to everyone, including Mr. Dorman, and the next

step is to get it to a sign company and have them convert it to what the final is going to look like. Mr.

Myers directed Mr. Dorman to contact 2 or 3 different sign companies and they will be able to turn it

into a dimensioned piece. In addition, he would like to see a mock-up of the little one, which they

could plot out and mount on foamcore. Ms. Barsky asked Mr. Myers about who would officially

introduce the application to Planning Commission, and he explained the Village is the applicant, and

would be responsible for bringing it in for official review.

The regular meeting opened at 7:30 p.m.

Minutes of November 27, 2000: Page 4, in the Finding of Fact, add " Finding of Fact"after

Presbyterian Church notation. MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS

AMENDED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

New Business:

12/ 21/ 00 -Granville Planning Commission -2 1 4

IGA R (odger Kessler)4.84 South Main Street G-round Sign Modification

Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant wishes to modify Planning Commission's approval of

Application0 #01-54 to allow for a tan background at the bottom ofthe sign as opposed to the dark blue

color approved by Planning Commission.

Mr. Kessler passed out color renderings ofthe approved sign with the dark blue

background as recommended by Planning Commission and the tan background as proposed. He

explained that the Ross Family and staffhad problems with the solid blue background at the

bottom.

Mr. Kessler showed the approved sign to the Rosses, and after discussion they wish to modify

the application to allow for tan background rather than dark blue on the bottom ofthe sign for clarity.

Mr. Burriss added that centering the Granville IGA line between the Granville Shopping Center

line and the first tenant panels would look better. Mr. Kessler added that Mr. Burriss'comment was a

fair criticism and doing that should be no problem.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE REQUEST BE CONSIDERED A MINOR MODIFICATION

TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATION0 #0-154. MR.WILKENFELD SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION0 #0-154M SUBJECT TO THE

FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1)THAT THE GRANVILLE IGA LOGO BE CENTERED BETWEEN

THE GRANVILLE SHOPPING CENTER LOGO AND TENANT SIGNS ON THE BOTTOM.

Frank Murphy. 53 Wexford Drive - Lot Split

Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposes to split off2840 sq.ft. from Lot 100 and

add it to Lot 101. This would allow the developer to install a turnaround on the driveway.

Mr. Murphy further explained that the split would not change the frontage or rear

dimensions on either lot,and that Lot#100 would only decrease by 5/100 ofan acre.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION0 #0-177 AS PRESENTED. MR.

SALVAGE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Robert Geranof o (r Calvin Spencer4),26W.Broadway Addition

Mr. Dorman said the applicant wants to add a second floor addition in the rear and remove the

siding and return to wood siding.

Mr. Gerano showed the colors and materials the applicant wishes to use for both the exterior

and the roof shingles. The new addition's trim and windows will match the rest of the house. He plans

to match the new siding with what is under the aluminum siding. The roofline of the addition will be 3'

higher than the roofline of the existing structure,and there is no way to lower the additions roof,short

of having a room with a 3' ceiling.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION0 #0-178 SUBJECT TO THE

FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1)THAT ALL TRIM BE DONE TO MATCH THE WOOD SIDING

AS WELL AS THE ADDITION,2)THAT THE COLORS OF THE HOUSE AND THE TRIM BE

AS BE AS SUBMITTED TONIGHT,AND 3)THAT THE COLORS AND MATERIALS OF THE

12/ 21/ 00 -Granville Planning Commission -3

ROOF BE AS SUBMITTED TONIGHT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: Centenary United Methodist Church

Miles Waggoner, Robert Hill, and Phil Markwood showed plans for the new church addition.

Mr. Waggoner presented their main objectives: ( 1)To upgrade the mechanical, electrical, and

plumbing infrastructures of the main sanctuary and education building;2 ()To make the church

handicapped accessible at all levels; 3 ()To improve and expand fellowship space in the lower level; and

4)To expand the multipurpose activity area. They have tried to to develop a plan to solve all these

issues, looking at multiple configurations and they determined that building into the parking lot would

be impractical, building above the church would not be feasible. The plan is to build the new addition

40' to the east.

Mr. Markwood said they would require a 4' walkway which means the width of Linden Place

would have to decrease to 15-16' instead of its existing 20 feet. They want to reflect the historic

character of the church. The Fire Department requires enough space for emergencies, and they cannot

do anything to the alley in back ( north).

Mr. Myers is concerned about the drive- up window at the bank and would be interested in

hearing their opinion on the plans. He has reservations on the Broadway elevations and feels that ·

improvements could be made. He recommended making a conscious break between the old church and

the new building or an indentation. Members also recommended bringing the dormer details on the

Broadway elevation down to the grade, like they are on the East ( Linden Place)elevation.

Mr. Burris stated that the National Park Association has guidelines on building additions onto

historic structures.

Mr. Salvage stated the GPC had a lot of turmoil over the width of the alley at the Presbyterian

Church, and 15',or even 16',is just too narrow, especially with the drive-through window and cars

parked on the street. Mr. Markwood said parking would have to be removed.

In summary, the following concerned were discussed:

Appearance of Broadway elevation

Get input from the Bank and the owner of the building.

Width of alley should probably be around 18 feet

Removal of parking spaces

Try to keep the nice grassy areas there now

Keep architectural integrity

Consult with Law Director on building into. or vacating the public alleyway.

Developing a conscious break between the older building and the addition,

similar to what the First Presbyterian Church did with their addition.

Finding of Fact: MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A, B AND C

IGA, MURPHY, GERANO)UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND GPC FINDS THAT THE FINDINGS

ARE CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS PRESENTED IN THE

VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF DECEMBER 8, 2000. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT WE APPROVE FINDING OF FACT FOR THE PRESBYTERIAN

CHURCH,0 #0162, AS FOLLOWS: THE PLANNIG COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE REQUEST

STRAYS TOO FAR FROM THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION AS IT WAS

APPROVED BY THE GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF

122/ 10/0 -Granville Planning Commission1 -- *'

THE FACT THAT A COMPROMISE HAS NOT BEEN ATTEMPTED TO SATISFY THE NEEDS

OF TWO AGGRIEVED PROPERTY OWNERS,AND HEREBY DENIES APPROVAL OF THE

APPLICATION. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Next Meeting:January 8,2001, 7:30 p.m.

No meeting on December 25

Adjournment:9:00 p.m.

GPC Minutes 11/27/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 27,2000

Minutes

DRAFT

Members Present:Jack Burriss, Barbara Lucier,Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: None

Also Present:Seth DormanV,'illage Planner '

Visitors Present: C.K. Barsky, Suzie Muir, Linda Schwarz, Christian Robertson,Dan Stevens, Norm Ingle,Bob Seith, David Shurtz, Bill Acklin

Citizens'Comments:None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

The meeting opened at 7 p.m.for a Work Session on Welcome to Granville Signs:

Mr. Myers presented an available sign package from the Holophane Corporation, which had the

most complete system he was able to find. The participants were directed to the Boston College page,

which had a street sign very similar to what we want. Mr. Burriss asked about color options and Mr.

Myers said you could get whatever color you want. Mr. Burriss asked if there was any cost

information included and Mr. Myers said no. Mr. Burriss asked if they sell coordinating benches and

Mr. Myers said they do not do street furnishings. Mr. Myers said when we do buy benches I think cost

should be a consideration but not the most important consideration, and Mr. Burriss agreed, and he also

added that he would love to find an attractive complimentary garage container.

In the interest of time Mr. Salvage suggested moving into the details of what Mr. Myers'

submissions. Mr. Myers said he would like to do square posts, to which Mr. Salvage agreed. Mr.

Burriss added he wants to make sure the posts have a graduated base and a stylistic cap detail. The

only other thing was that on the " Welcome To Granville"signs he would like to see the sign mounted 1

th to 2"lower in order for the cap detail to be stronger and cleaner.

Another concern raised by Mr. Burriss was the appearance that the fanlight graphic was more

predominant than the " Welcome To Granville"lettering, and he would like to see the opposite effect.

Further, he stated that the lettering is not quite what we envisioned, but maybe if the graphic gets

smaller, the lettering will appear larger.

The group discussed the next steps, including sharing the recommendation with council and

applying for a permit. Mr. Burriss thanked everyone for their participation and cooperation in this

process.

Ms. Muir asked Mr. Myers if the " Welcome To Granville"sign's shape was stock, and Mr.

Myers said that would have to be custom-made. The work session ended on that note, and a sketch of

what was discussed tonight will be presented next time.

The regular meeting opened at 7:30 p.m.

Minutes of November 1, 2000: MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS

PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of November 13, 2000:

Page 1, line 3 from bottom: W " IDTH OF 9.6"T,O ALLOW THE USE OF A BRICK

SURFACE. AND TO GIVE THE APPLICANT...."

12/1/00 -Granville Planning Commission -2

Page 3,Motion in center of page: T "ENANT PANELS ON THE BOTTOM AND THE

LOWER HALF OF THE SIGN WILL HAVE A DARK BLUE BACKGROUND AND THE TENANT

PANELS WILL BE OUTLINED...."

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. SALVAGE

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

1"Presbyterian Church R (obertson Construction)1.10W.Broadway A-lley Width

Mr. Burriss recused himself from this application.}

Mr. Dorman stated that Village Council found that the 15'as-built width of Locust Place in the

area of the 3 parking spaces is not a minor modification contrary to Planning Commission's May 8,

2000 decision that it is a minor modification. The applicant has returned per code requirements with a

new application for approval of the as-built width.

Mr. Robertson admitted a mistake was made,although to date the church has heard no reports

of collisions or sideswipings.

Mr. Myers asked if the original width of 15'9"was face-to-face,curb-to-curb,and Mr.

Robertson confirmed it was face to face.

Mr. Myers asked how the contractors arrived at the 15'width, and Mr. Robertson explained

that the project's superintendent used the architectural drawings for the west fellowship hall doorway to

get the dimensions and line up with the wheelchair ramp, and did not correlate the those drawings with

the civil drawings.

Further,Mr. Robertson explained the position of widening the alley to 16'would require a 1'

wide linear patch that would in the short term solve individual concerns and in the long term would

degrade the integrity of the existing pavement.

Bob Seith,property owner across from the church, remains convinced that the alley needs to be

16' as agreed upon. It's too narrow and too tight as it is now. The contractor should be required to

return it to 16'.The right thing should be done.

Norm Ingle added that he works at Pinkerton's, and he parked in the alley before it was

narrowed and there was no problem then. In addition, he feels in time someone will be sideswiped.

Bill Acklin does not deny a mistake was made. The church has offered parking spaces in the

rear to the parties concerned. He feels that the exit needs the existing width to be ADA compliant,but

widening the alley around the three parking spaces may be a possibility.

Village Council, according to Ms. Lucier, affirmed Planning Commission's decision to approve

a minor modification of the as-built width of the alley north of the three parking spaces,but not in the

area of the parking spaces.

Mr. Wilkenfeld asked about estimated cost of rebuilding, and Mr. Robertson did not know.

Ms. Lucier stated Mark Zarbaugh did not think it would be a significant problem. Mr. Myers asked if

the Service Department had any complaints about the width,and Mr. Dorman explained that Mr.

Zarbaugh said he ran a pickup with a plow through the alley last week when it snowed, and it was tight

but he could get through.

Mr. Salvage noticed when he drove his pick-up through that it was tight and he noticed a

number of black tire marks on the existing sidewalk on the west side. Mr. Salvage told Mr. Robertson

that he is a developer and where he has a screw-up he is expected to fix it,and he feels that the alley

should be widened back to 16'.When originally approved, we recognized we would lose spaces in the

alley,but we also thought we were going to get parking spaces back on Main Street,but that is still

designated as a drop-off zone. Mr. Acklin stated the spaces on Main could be reestablished, according

to Joe Hickman. Mr. Myers said that was really a Village issue,but they could re-stripe the spaces if

they wanted.

1

12/ 1/00 -Granville Planning Commission -3

Mr. Wilkenfeld mentioned a conversation he had with Mr. Dorman regarding alternative

solutions, and Mr. Dorman presented a diagram of a mountable curb to the Planning Commission. Mr.

Dorman said that Mr. Zarbaugh discussed this as a possible solution to the width problem, as it would

pick up an additional 15"in width but would require the sidewalk to be removed.

Mr. Myers stated that he did not feel comfortable making a decision tonight on mountable curb,

but the Planning Commission still has to act on the application at hand, and that is to approve the built width of Locust Place as- at 15'.

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

SECONDED. THE MOTION WAS DENIED BY 2 NAYS (Salvage and Wilkenfeld)AND 1 AYE

Myers).

Mr. Stevens asked why the Planning Commission made a decision completely contrary to the

decision made in May 2000. Mr. Salvage said that his feelings are no different now then they were in

May, but in May there were no objections, even when I asked Mr. Seith specifically if he objected.

Mr. Myers, in the interest of time, summarized the situation by stating that there is an aggrieved

property owner who you have not been ablb to make a compromise with. The original application

promised a width of 16',at 15' the property owner feels aggrieved, right or wrong, that is his sense of

it. If you could design a solution that works for the aggrieved parties that would go a long way, and I

encourage you to speak to both Pinkertons and Mr. Seith to work something out.

David ShurtzL (ost F&ound Treasures)2.04 Munson Street S-andwich Board

Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposes to install a projecting sign on the northeast

corner ofthe building,promoting the Lost and Found Treasures shop.

The only things Mr. Shurtz added was that he would like to go with black and white for

the sign colors. In addition,Mr. Dorman informed Mr. Shurtz that the proposed dimensions

would not be in compliance with the code and that the maximum allowable sign was 8 square

feet. Mr. Shurtz presented the dimensions of2'6"wide x3' high,which totals 7.5 square feet.

Mr. Salvage confirmed that the applicant wanted the sign to be black and white rather

than the tan and black shown in the proposal, and then asked Mr. Shurtz if he had a preference.

Mr. Shurtz told him he would prefer black and white.

Mr. Burriss asked Mr. Shurtz if he was trying to attract people from South Main Street

with the sign,and Mr. Shurtz said no, but from Mulberry and Munson.

Mr. Wilkenfeld noted he thought the black and white would be stark,and asked Mr.

Shurtz ifthe white was going to be an off-white, and Mr. Shurtz said it can be the beige to match

the siding if you prefer.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 0 #0-167 SUBJECT TO THE

FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ( 1)THAT THE DIMENSIONS OF THE SIGN BE REDUCED TO

2'6"WIDE X 3' HIGH. AND (2)THAT WE GRANT THE APPLICANT THE OPTION OF USING

BLACK AND WHITE IF HE DECIDES NOT TO USE THE TAN AS SHOWN ON THE

APPLICATION. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Norm Ingle.Pippin Hill Store. 113 N.Prospect - Sandwich Board

Mr. Dorman said that the applicant proposes to erect a sandwich board sign in front of the

business located at 113 North Prospect Street.

Mr. Ingle explained that there is 10 feet from the curb to the front step, and we are proposing

to put the sign 2' off the curb. The sign will be located at a natural break point, where two parallel

parking spaces come together, so it will not interfere with parking at all.

1 rt

A

12/ 1/00 -Granville Planning Commission -4

Mr. Myers confirmed that there would be about 6'clearance for pedestrians to pass by,and

Mr.Ingle said yes,between 5 and 6 feet. Mr.Ingle further stated that the colors ofthe sign would

match the sign on the building,which Planning Commission approved about 1 -U years ago. The sign

will have a cream background,with hunter green and burgundy lettering and graphics. On the bottom

of the sign would be a dry erase marker board for daily specials.

Mr. Wilkenfeld asked about the proliferation of sandwich board signs and whether or not that

was a concern here. N

proposal meets the requirements. Mr. Wilkenfeld thought that,maybe the bigger issue here should be

discussed after this application is dealt with,and Mr. Myers said that we want to have successful

businesses and to some degree we want to be careful.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION0 #0-170 AS PRESENTED. MR.

BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

f

Finding of Fact: MR.SALV62* MbVED TO POSTPONE APPROVAL OF THE

PRESBSYTERIAN CHURCHA(ND TO APPROVE ITEMS B ANC C UNDER NEW BUSINESS

Shurtz and Ingle)A,ND GPC FINDS THAT THE FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH '

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS PRESENTED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S

MEMO OF NOVEMBER 22,2000. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meeting:December 11, 2000, 7:30 p.m.

No meeting on December 25.

Adiournment:8:20 p.m.

GPC Minutes 11/13/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 13,2000

Minutes

DRAFT

Members Present: Members Jack Burriss, Barbara Lucier,Keith Myers,Richard Salvage Absent:Carl Wilkenfeld

Also Present:Seth Dorman, Village Planner

Visitors Present: C.K. Barsky,Ruth Owen,Dan Rogers,Leta Ross,Rodger Kessler,Thomas LDaicwksyoenr,Dave Rutledge,Wade Evans,Mary E. Bline,Dan Spence,Dennis Percy,Julie Bullock,David

Citizens'Comments:None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

The meeting opened at 7 p.m. for a Work Session on Welcome to Granville Signs. The halfh-our discussion included the center graphic, the posts,whether other information should be included, such as Rotary and Kiwanis Clubs, and street signs. Consistency is very important.

Mr. Myers will do some redesigning and bring in samples at the next meeting. The group liked the hanging sign design, and preferred dark green signs with white letters. The shape of the center graphic needs some reworking.

The group will meet again on Monday,December 11, at 7 p.m.

Minutes of October 23,2000: MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS

PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of November 1 will be considered at the next meeting.

New Business:

Dan Rogers.210 East Maple Street -Modification

Mr. Dorman stated that Mr. Rogers is requesting a modification to Application 0#0-106 to

widen the driveway and to use brick instead of concrete on the driveway. Mr. Rogers added that the

brick will look nicer, and later he may to use brick on the patio that was also approved with this

application.

Mr. Myers discussed the previously approved application with Mr. Dorman and realized that

this request is a pretty minor modification, and that a motion would have to be approved stating that it

is a minor modification.

There was a short discussion about what would hold the driveway up, and Mr. Rogers said he

would probably pour a curb, and Mr. Myers suggested that a brick restraint would work well and be

cheaper than pouring a curb.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT 00-106M IS A MINOR MODIFICATION. MR. BURRISS

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Rogers asked if, at a later date,he wanted to change the slab in back to brick would he

have to return, and GPC agreed to give him the option to do it now.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION OF APPLICATION # 00-106 TO

ALLOW FOR A DRIVEWAY WIDTH OF 9'6"AND TO GIVE THE APPLICANT THE OPTION

TO USE BRICK ON THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONCRETE SURFACES. MR. BURRISS

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

,9

Granville Planning Commission -2

Behal Sampson Dietz,130 South Mulberry Street.R -emodeling

Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposes to modify the home's interior,add a

gabled one-story addition on the second floor at the location ofthe existing deck,and to create a

more traditional roofform on the east elevation.

Ms. Bullock,the project's Architect,said that project is not adding additional square

footage to the footprint,it is just adding on top ofan existing piece.

After a brief discussion amongst themselves, they Planning Commission proceeded with a

motion.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION0 #01-41 AS SUBMITTED. MR.

BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Lumber.401 South Main Street F-ence and Landscaping

Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant proposes to change the fence line at the rear of the

property,to light and landscape the existing sign,to install a lighted flagpole and landscape the front of

the building, and to replace the rail fence on both sides of the south entrance. Mr. Lawyer,of Granville

Lumber,said they only thing he would add is that originally they proposed to mount the flagpole light

on the side of the building, and after talking to his lighting engineer,he is now proposing to use a

ground mounted light, and he gave Planning Commission members a copy of the light he would like to

use.

Mr. Myers asked Mr. Lawyer why he chose to use a vinyl fence on the south entrance to the

lumberyard and Mr. Lawyer replied that it would stay whiter and brighter longer and it would not have

to be painted. Mr. Myers asked Mr. Lawyer if they could extend the landscaping beyond the front of

the building to help screen these fences and he said he could.

Ms. Lucier asked about the size of the flag and Mr. Lawyer told her it would be a standard size

flag.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 00-152,WITH THE FOLLOWING

CONDITIONS: ( 1)THAT THE LIGHT FOR THE FLAGPOLE BE GROUND MOUNTED PER

THE ILLUSTRATION PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT THIS EVENING, AND (2)THAT THE

APPLICANT EXTEND THE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FENCE TO THE IMMEDIATE

SOUTH OF THE BUILDING. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Geor2e Wade Evans.134 North Pearl Street F-ence

Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposes to install a picket fence around the property's

perimeter. Mr. Evans said he wants to encompass the entire perimeter with 42"picket fence and tie in

to the wall. It will be set back 1' from sidewalk and will be angled at the corner to provide safety. The

fence will be painted white in the spring. The applicant did not know how far apart the pickets are, and

Mr. Myers said spacing and style should match the fence at 201 N. Pearl. The cap style has not yet

been selected, and Mr. Evans will bring it in later.

Mr. Burriss is concerned about the gates since they are not drawn here, and feels they need to

be more than just a section of the fence. Perhaps they could echo the arch over the windows. Mr.

Myers felt they should be different by themselves, and Mr. Salvage added that the 4"posts should go

inside the gate.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION0 #0-153, SUBJECT TO THE

FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ( 1)THAT THE WIDTH OF THE PICKETS AND THE SPACING

MATCH THE EXISTING FENCE ON THE NE CORNER OF PEARL AND E. COLLEGE

2

Granville Planning Commission -3

STREETS,2 ()THAT THE GATES BE MOUNTED AND LATCHED TO STANDARD POSTS USED FOR THE FENCE,3 ()THAT THE APPLICANT HAS THE OPTION TO SQUARE OFF THE FENCE BETWEEN PEARL STREET AND THE HOUSE,AND 4( )THAT THE APPLICANT BRING IN POST CAPS AND GATE DESIGN FOR FINAL APPROVAL BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ross IGA,484 South Main Street S-ign

Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposes to install a ground sign in front ofthe Ross IGA that would include a list of businesses in that shopping center. Mr. Kessler gave each of the Planning Commission members a copy ofthe landscaping plan. One member asked about the existing sign and Mr. Kessler said that would come down.

One member asked what sandblasted foam was,and Mr. Kessler said that was the original plan,but they will use a doublef-aced aluminum sign with cutout letters and panels pin- mounted to the sign. There will be groundm- ounted lighting hidden in the landscaping. The sign will use a reflex blue,the IGA red and a tan colors.

There was some discussion as to whether or not the Village Council would have to

approve the sign:being placed in the right-of-way,and Mr. Dorman said he would check with the Village Manager.

Mr. Myers suggested making the background of the lower half all blue instead of tan like

the upper halc and the tenant panels could still have the lighter blue outline, which would draw them out more.

Mr. Burriss noted that the Granville Lumber sign has posts on either side. He mentioned

that Planning Commission is trying to achieve a consistency in Village signage and thinks the

posts should be moved from in between the sign's sides to either side ofthe signs.

Mr. Salvage would prefer posts on the outside of the sign, and Mr. Kessler thinks they

can do that and play with color and sizes.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 00-154,WITH THE FOLLOWING

CONDITIONS: ( 1)THAT THE CHANGE OF MATERIALS TO ALUMINUM IS

APPROVED,WITH 12/"THICK LETTERING MOUNTED ON THE TOP HALF,2 ()THAT

THE TENANT PANELS ON THEBOTTOILL*H' AVE A DARK BLUE BACKGROUND

AND WILL BE OUTLINED IN A LIGHT BLUE AS INDICATED ON THE SUBMISSION,

3)THAT SQUARE POSTS WILL BE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SIGN,WITH A CAP

DETAIL SIMILAR TO WHAT IS BEING USED ON THE VILLAGE ENTRANCE SIGNS

POSTS CAN BE EITHER DARK BLUE OR TAN)4, )T(HAT THE SIGN WILL BE

LLUMINATED BY GROUND LIGHT CONCEALED IN THE LANDSCAPING,AND (5) .

THAT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN AS SUBMITTED TONIGHT IS APPROVED. MR.

BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

David and Stacv Dickson,235 North Pearl Street -Fence.

Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants propose to wood board fence around the yard,

which would replace existing fence. Mr. Dickson said they will be keeping the shrubbery,and a

gate will be replaced. The fence will be 72"in the side and rear yards and the front yard gate will

be 42"w,ill be treated lumber and 4 x 4"posts,to be stained a natural brown in the spring. The

color is to be submitted to the Village Planner. The neighbor has no objections to the fence.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 00-155, SUBJECT TO THE

FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1)THAT THE FENCE IS 72"IN OVERALL HEIGHT

ALONG THE SIDE AND BACK AND 42"IN THE FRONT,AND ( 2)THAT THE FENCE

4

3

WILL HAVE TO BE STAINED AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME WITH A COLOR TO BE h,

DECIDED LATER»AND SUBMIT THE COLOR TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR.

BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Marv E.Bline.Greystone Antiques.128 South Main Street -Sandwich Board Signs

Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposes to install duplicate sandwich board signs,

promoting the phone number and hours of operation of Greystone Antiques,both in front of the

business on South Main Street,and in front of the bank on East Broadway. Ms. Bline found out during

the construction of South Main Street when the Village Manager allowed her to place a sandwich board

sign on East Broadway that it helped bring customers to her shop. Ms.Bline said she is only asking to

have the sign up on East Broadway during the weekends. If she is not granted a sign on Broadway,she

recommended erecting a joint identification sign for businesses off Broadway.

Mr. Burriss remarked that the sign was not always taken down at night. Also,the code

specifies no off-premise signs. Mr. Myers supports the joint directory sign to eliminate a proliferation

of sandwich boards, but that is up to the Village.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION0 #0-157,SUBJECT TO THE

FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1 ()THE SANDWICH BOARD SIGN PROPOSED TO BE PLACED

ON EAST BROADWAY NOT BE ALLOWED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Denison University.800 Sunset Hill - New Building

Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposed to build the fourth of four residence halls on

Sunset Hill.

GPC approved the first three residence halls of a series of four,and Denison now wants to

build the fourth hall. Mr. Perry said it would match the others in appearance and materials. The

existing parking lot will be extended for an additional 90 parking slots.

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

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE ITEMS A THROUGH H UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND

FINDS THAT THE FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE

CODE AS PRESENTED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF NOVEMBER 9, 2000. MR.

BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Pinehurst Sign Lighting

George Manning from the Association said they would like to put a single light at each

sign at the entrance ofthe development. The lighting is to be like the Bryn Du signs,and they

need to know what wattage to light it with. Mr. Myers suggested no more than 75-100 watts and

landscape lighting to camouflage lights. Mr. Burriss has no problem with the lighting but asked

what is happening to the pine trees. Mr. Manning said they are dying from some kind of blight.

The Village Planner can approve the lights when they come for approval.

Next Meeting:November 27, 2000, 7:00 p.m. E(ntrance Signs)

Adjournment:8:50 p.m.

GPC Minutes 11/1/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 1.2000,7:30 a.m.

SPECIAL MEETING

Minutes

Members Members PArbesseenntt::Jack Burriss,Barbara Lucier,Richard Salvage,Keith Myers Carl Wilkenfeld

Also Present:Seth Dorman,Village Planner Visitors Present:None

Citizens'Comments:None

Work Session:

DRAFT

A)Proposed Heritage Overlay District t(o replace TCOD)and amendment to Architectural Review Overlay District

Mr. Myers started with a little history on the original document that Frank Elmer A&ssociates worked on. He said that Council contracted Mr. Elmer to create Architectural Standards during the Comprehensive Plan process, and the committee that Mr. Burriss and myself served on saw a copy of the German Village Architectural Standards. Eventually problems evolved with Mr. Elmer and finally at one meeting things blew up and Mr. Elmer was asked to submit what he had and the piece sat for awhile, until recently when Mr. Bellman decided to pick it up and present it. There are two parts to the Ordinance in front of us, a section to amend the AROD and the other to amend the TCOD. Mr. Myers said he agrees with amending the AROD but is not convinced that amending the TCOD is the way to go. As he sees it the objective is to create Architectural Development Standards for new development areas, but just commercial not residential. Further he feels that some parts of the proposal are good but it crosses the line between a thesis paper and a code, and his initial reaction is to look at the standards in various sections of the existing code and to amend those where Planning Commission is concerned.

Mr. Salvage mentioned that he does have a problem with the Chapter 1176 proposal. Mr. Burriss stated that when this was first started there were several proposals for Cherry Valley Road and

we were concerned that there was nothing to help determine the character of that area. Ms. Lucier asked if that is still true and Mr. Burriss said no.

Mr. Myers said that there are some nice examples in here, to which Mr. Burriss agreed, and

some illustrations of scale and lot placement that I still feel are very good, like the reference to the

Field Guide to American Houses. In addition, Mr. Myers liked the dissertation on the Granville

Vernacular in that it is fairly protective. For example, if he came to Planning Commission with a

garage addition and its not Colonial Revival like his house, that is ok because the Granville Vernacular is a mix of styles.

Mr. Myers said that he still struggles with ascertaining what this is telling you to do, and as a code it is ineffective. His first question is to find out if the purpose of the proposed 1176 is to regulate

McDonalds on Cherry Valley Road. Do we think we have enough to do that in the current code,this proposal does not as it reads.

Mr. Burriss noted that the Fackler Shopping Center proposal under the pree-xisting code was a good building architecturally and had some merit. We were able to develop that building under the

existing standards. In addition, Mr. Burriss stated that he feels privileged to be on this Planning

Commission, but we are not all going to be here forever, and he would like to leave a legacy of clear

and concise information. Ms. Lucier added that way we will not have to rely as much on who is on

Planning Commission.

Mr. Myers said in order to structure the discussion he would like the objective to be looking at

regulations specifically geared toward IGA and that area of South Main Street and Cherry Valley Road.

His idea was to skim through Mr. Elmer's proposed Chapter 1176 and pick out things that have merit.

Ms. Lucier asked if we did not have Chapter 1176,what would we be relying on for those

areas,just the SBD information. Mr. Myers added the PCD,and Ms. Lucier said and not the TCOD?

Mr. Myers said primarily the TCOD establishes setbacks. Ms. Lucier said so we will be pulling out

pieces of 1176 to enhance the SBD and PCD. Then she asked,do you think the TCOD is good enough

as it is for what it is?Mr. Myers said my sense is that the TCOD was intended to set development

back from historic roadways, and it has a pretty simple purpose that we should not muck up.

The following are the excerpts from the code amendments proposed in Ordinance1 #70-0 that

Planning Commission found merit in and would like to incorporate into the appropriate sections of the

existing code:

Chapter 1176 - Village Heritage Overlay District

1176.02 -Purpose: The purpose statement could be incorporated into the General Provisions section

of the existing code.

1176.06 -Adopted References and Advisors: The word adopted should be removed from the

heading, and the words,w "hich is hereby adopteds,h"ould be removed from sentence one. This

clause could be added to the SBD, PCD and AROD chapters of the existing code. However the

reference to A Field Guide To American Houses should be removed from the clause for the SBD and

PCD, and the NPS Guidelines should be added to the reference list for the AROD. Mr. Burriss

mentioned that the book Main Street is out of print and hard to get although he and Ms. Wimberger

were able to track down some copies. Mr. Myers said he would like to have two copies of each book

listed in the reference section, available at the public library. Mr. Myers suggested that Mr. Dorman

could find the appropriate location for the clause in each of the various chapters.

1176.07 D-esign Standards and Criteria For Business Buildings,C ( )The Two Part Commercial

Block: 3 ()This statement has value and can be used somewhere. 6 ()This statement can be placed

under the building massing discussion of the existing code,provided the work "zone"is replaced with

story." 7 ) T(his statement has value and can possibly be used under the windows discussion of the

existing code. 1(2)The first sentence could be placed in the building massing discussion of the current

code. The second,third and fourth sentences need to be restructured into a series of small statements

rather than a few run-on sentences. Mr. Myers felt that this was more to the point with the commercial

buildings in the area than what is in the SBD right now.

Ms. Lucier clarified that Planning Commission's recommendation is to leave the original

Chapter 1176 alone, to which Mr. Myers said yes. Ms. Lucier asked if there was nothing in the

proposal that would help, and Mr. Salvage said there is nothing that we do not already have control

over.

Mr. Myers said in review that Planning Commission's recommendation to Council is to take

Mr. Elmer's proposed Village Heritage Overlay District, bust it apart and add pieces to the existing

zoning categories it is aimed at. Planning Commission was in agreement, and Mr. Burriss said we

could simply state that as a form of simplification and ease of use, rather than adding a whole new

section. Mr. Myers asked the Planner to try amending the SBD and PCD with the recommendations

and to highlight the changes so Planning Commission can look at them. Further, he said, as a group

we would prefer to review that next, and what we pass to Council may be different than the Ordinance

Mr. Bellman has sent us to review.

2

Chapter 1161 - Architectural Review Overlay District

1161.02 -Purpose: The purpose statement is good and the entire section should be utilized.

1161.03 -District Area: The statement has value and will be used.

1161.04 -Application For Zoning Certificates: This statement has value and will be used.

1161.05 C-ontents of Application: The words to" scale"should be added to the end ofthe b( )1()and b4)()statements, and all else is acceptable.

t1it1le6.1.06 A-dopted References and Advisors: See comments under Chapter 1176 section of same

Mr. Burriss stated that were this to be adopted in its current form, it would lead to more confusion and less productivity. In addition,were we to dissect and adopt particular sections and apply them to our existing code,we would develop a more useful document.

The group discussed communicating there feelings to Council through a resolution.

Mr. Burriss asked about addressing Mr. Wilkenfeld's thoughts as established in his letters to Planning Commission. The group felt that his issues could not be addressed in the framework of the existing task at hand.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT WHILE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS A

SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF USEFUL INFORMATION IS CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSED

CHANGES TO CHAPTERS 1161 AND 1176 OF THE ZONING CODE,WE BELIEVE THAT THE AMENDMENTS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCE # 17-00 AS PROPOSED ARE NOT

STRUCTURED IN A WAY THAT IS USEFUL TO THE APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATION

OF THE ZONING CODE. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROPOSED

ORDINANCE BE WITHDRAWN. IF THE ORDINANCE IS WITHDRAWN,PLANNING

COMMISSION WILL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS OF CHANGES TO THE APPROPRIATE

SECTIONS OF THE EXISTING ZONING CODE,TO MAKE USE OF THE APPLICABLE

INFORMATION IN A MORE EFFECTIVE MANNER. MR. BURRISS SECONDED THE

MOTION,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9: 15 a.m.

Next Meeting:Monday, November 13.

GPC Minutes 10/23/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 23,2000

Minutes

DRAFT

Members Present:Jack Burriss, Richard Salvage, Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent:Keith Myers, Barbara Lucier

Also Present:Seth Dorman, Village Planner

Visitors Present:Linda Schwartz, Suzy Murr,Tim Snider,Ed Vance, C.K. Barsky, Bill and Lois

Wernet,Doug and Mistie Berschet

Citizens' Comments:None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of October 10, 2000: MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS

PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Bill and Lois Fonnan Wernet. 134 S. Mulberry Street - Storm Doors

Mr. Dorman stated that applicant proposes to add white custom-made storm doors to the double

doors and the single door on the front porch Mr. Wernet added that there will be two solid glass

panels for the double doors. The glass is entirely plain, a tempered safety glass.

Mr. Wilkenfeld questioned if the doors would cover the transom, and he was told it would not.

Mr. Burriss mentioned that he has found that some protective doors aren't protecting the wood,because

the fit is so tight that the varnish is peeling off,and Mr. Wernet said that he would be concerned about

that but the doors are very porous. Mr. Burriss asked if handles would be installed on both of the

storm doors over the double door and he was told they would. Mr. Wilkenfeld commented that the

wood doors do not lose as much character with the chosen storm doors, and Mr. Wernet said that was

one of their goals.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 00-142 AS SUBMITTED. MR. BURRISS

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Douglas and Mistie Berschet.326 W. Maple Street -Addition

Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants wish to make a two-story addition to the rear of the

house. He also mentioned that the applicant proposes to change the dimensions that were proposed on

the application from 18' x 19' to 20'x 19'.The addition would line up with the existing home at 4.3'

from the western property line and will require a variance from BZBA, which they will hear on

October 26, 2000.

Mr. Berschet talked about the materials to be used, and that the addition will be made to match

the color and trim of the existing home, the rooffine will match the existing, the chimney will have

siding, and there will some exposed foundation with landscaping around that. The applicant also

mentioned that an air conditioner will need to be installed.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 00-137 SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL

OF THE BZBA FOR THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

r

1

l

4%

Greg Ream Taylor Drugs)2.00 E.BroadwayT e-mporary sign

Mr. Dorman stated the applicant proposes to install a temporary contractor's sign towards the

front ofthe property at 200 East Broadway at the site where the construction ofTaylors Drugs will take

place. One note is that the proposed sign is 32 square feet,which will require a variance.

Mr. Snider said that the sign will be angled so it is facing both the Prospect and Broadway

frontages. It will be professionally done and the colors will be color matched to the old sign in front of

the existing store.

The members discussed how the Presbyterian Church was allowed multiple signs for their

addition project. Mr. Burriss said he thought the way they approved the church signs is that they are

on two frontages.

Mr. Burriss asked where on the property would the sign be and Mr. Snider said where the

existing light pole was. Mr. Burriss asked if it would be inside the construction fence and he was told

it would be.

Mr. Salvage said he felt like this was really 2 different signs;the announcement of Taylors

Drugs moving and the contractors sign.

Mr. Burriss asked how high is the construction fence and Mr. Snider told him 6 feet. Mr.

Burriss mentioned that the sign is 10 feet. Mr. Snider said that some of the sign will be screened by the

fence.

Mr. Wilkenfeld said that clearly this is two signs,and the contractors sign on the right is the

proper size.

Mr. Burriss asked where the posts would be located,and Mr. Snider told him behind the sign

using 4"square posts.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE ALLOWING THE COMBINATION OF THE

CONTRACTOR'S SIGN ALONG WITH THE INFORMATION SIGN,ABOUT THE MOVING OF

A BUSINESS, INTO A SINGLE SIGN,WHICH MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TWO

SIGNS,ON A TEMPORARY BASIS NOT TO EXCEED 9 MONTHS. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session

A)Welcome to Granville Signs

Ms. Barsky showed the group examples of fan-styled curvatures in some of the Village homes.

The Beautification Committee representatives still like the simplicity of the fanlight for the center

graphic.

One idea presented by Linda Schwartz is the reflection of a tree in the fanlight.

Ms. Murr voiced a concern with the political correctness of Mr. Meyer's sketch of the steeples

at the four corners as the main focus of the center graphic.

Mr. Burriss reiterated that everyone seemed to be in agreement regarding the sign's shape and

materials to be used.

Ms. Murr discussed her travels in the last couple weeks to several design firms in Columbus,

Ohio,to get their opinion on the original proposal, and they saw nothing wrong with it and stated that it

was a nice simple design.

Mr. Burriss asked Ms. Murr if the fanlight would be a stock item and she replied that because

Mr. Meyers came up with the graphic, the Beautification Committee was lead to believe it was

available.

Mr. Burriss reiterated that all were in agreement about the date.

Mr. Burriss began a discussion about which example had the most appropriate f"igure ground."

A short discussion ensued about the proper posts for the signs, and Mr. Burriss wished Mr.

Meyers was there to show some examples of posts.

Mr. Dorman retrieved examples of the Village of Granville stationery to show Ms. Barsky.

Ms. Barsky decided the stationery's fanlight was not what she remembered.

2

Mr. Burriss talked some more to Ms. Murr about the availability of the fanlight graphic the Beautification Committee liked so much.

Mr. Burriss asked the Beautification Committee representatives if they liked the spread version

of the fanlight more than the original version, and that possibly the spread version would be more readily available.

Mr. Dorman said he would like through his files to see if he could find a better version of the

fanlight graphic.

Mr. Burriss discussed the type of finish the group would like the sign to have. Ms. Murr asked

if a high sheen would create visibility concerns at night, and Mr. Burriss said you would not want a high sheen.

The group decided to conclude the meeting until the next Planning Commission Meeting, at

which they would start up the discussion again at 7:00 p.m.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE ITEMS A, B, AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS

AND FOUND THAT THE FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF

THE CODE AS PRESENTED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF OCTOBER 23. MR.

BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meeting: October 23, 2000, 7:30 a.m. {Heritage Overlay District}

Adjournment: 8:00 p.m.

GPC Minutes 10/10/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 10,2000

Minutes

DRAFT

MMeemmbbeerrss APbresseennt:t:CJaacrlk Burriss,Keith Myers,Richard Salvage,Barbara Lucier Wilkenfeld

Also Present:Seth Dorman,Village Planner,Joe Hickman,Village Manager Visitors Present:Mike Frazier,Connie Barsky,Steve Mershon,John Noblick,Rebecca Pierce,Susie Murr,Ruth Owen

Citizens'Comments:None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

New Business:

Rebecca Pierce. 116 East Broadwayr (ears)i-gn application buildingMr. Dorman stated that applicant proposes to put a 7-foot sandwich board sign at the rear ofthe as shown in the photographs.

applicanMt ssta.tLeudctiheartqiutewstiilol ned whether the sign will be placed where it is shown in the picture and the be as shown.

Mr. Myers questioned the dimensions ofthe sidewalk as shown. The applicant replied that there is little room currently available on the sidewalk but it is the only location option. Ms. Pierce stated that the sign will not be seen by a majority ofpeople but will be seen by the customers. replied thMatr.thSealvage questioned whether the black trees will show up on the red sun. The applicant sun would show.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 00-133 AS SUBMITTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

John Noblick,405 East College StreetA- C/Compressors

Mr.Dorman explained that the applicant proposes to locate two air conditioner compressor units soonutthheerenast side ofthe home. The northern most unit will be four feet from the property line and the most unit will be five feet from the property line. John Noblick added that the compressors will be less than three feet in height and the HVAC contractor does not guarantee efficient operation ifthe units are placed any further from the house. The best operation for the units is where shown. Mr. Burris questioned how close landscaping can get to the units and still have efficient performance. Eighteen inches from the home seems an acceptable distance. It would be problematic for the homeowner to have the units any closer to the home.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 00-134 AS SUBMITTED.MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

None

Work Sessions

A)W "elcome to Granville"Signs

Mr.Myers displayed his W" elcome to Granville"sign changes to Ruth Owen,Connie Barsky, Mike Frazier,Joe Hickman and the Planning Commission. This work session is continued from the September 25th Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Myers does not like the sign application presented by the sign shop. Mr.Myers mentioned the fanlight issue,the significance ofthe fanlight,and the lack of examples on homes in the Village.Mr. Myers suggests using a circle or a more rounder shape. He stated that it is difficult to design a logo on a committee. Mr. Myers stated that the sign needs an appropriately styled G.

Ms. Owen likes the proposed picture because it exemplifies the rural character ofthe Village. She suggests letting someone else design the oval.

Mr. Salvage suggestedthat a date be added. The shape ofthe posts are acceptable. An oval and

color decision are needed.

Mr. Burriss raised the issue ofthe steeples. He likes the trees but not as many as proposed. He

suggests showing rural character in the foreground and steeples inthe background. The fences should be

kept to imply agriculture. He suggests keeping consistencywiththe oval. Mr.Burriss likes the strong

border ofthe oval rather than lines that simply stop.

Mr. Burriss mentioned that the less that is put on the sign,the stronger it will be. Mr.Burriss

stated that it would be helpful to establish strong precedent with the detail in the welcome sign which

would then establish future sign foundations. Consistency is necessary.

Ms.Owen questioned the size ofthe sign and asked how much ofthe oval will be seen.

Mr.Burriss suggested that ifthe oval is cleaner,it will serve to clear up the landscape.

Ms. Barsky does not prefer to separate the village and township. Therefore,both can be included

ifthe steeples and landscape are combined. The signs are proposed to be placed on township land. This

necessitates going to township trustees.

Ms. Owen questioned that ifsigns are placed along the Village line,people on the other side of

the sign to(wnship)will feel left out. It is important to look at whether the township wants the signs.

Mr. Burris likes the logo because it combines the Village and Township.

Mr. Hickman stated that there is value in having a smaller sign at corporation limits. This

produces a hierarchy in signs. One example is the sign Denison has on North Main. All agree it is

attractive.

Mr. Frazier suggested that a designer create a design and then present to the Planning

Commission.The Village is the applicant and should hire a designer. Ms. Murr feels all could agree on

someone to do it. One idea is to consolidate signs by combining with other organizations such as

Kiwanis.

Mr. Salvage recommends that the signs not be too cluttered. It is important to be cautious and not

to block vision with signs.

All agree that the sign vocabulary is acceptable. The post caps should be peaked and in copper

for a nice finish detail. A color( s)ofthe sign needs to be agreed on. Mr. Myers prefers blue and white in

the Village. Black on white is harder to read. Dark color with black lettering is a suggestion. Mr.

Salvage prefers not to get too much blachke w-ants to create a warmer feeling. Mr.Burriss stated that

complementary colors are important. Mr. Salvage wants varying options printed out.

Beautification Committee reasons on why particular sign was chosen:

1-Historically based

2-Not as redundant as what is going on in any suburb,etc.m (ainly cream and green colors)

3-Trying to keep consistent in color. This helps with directional information.

Ms. Barsky proposes that the Village design signs with different colors and come back for a

meeting. All plan to meet October 23 at 7 pm to have further discussion.

B)Discussion between Planner and Commission regarding Certified Oil,466 South Main Street.

Joe Hickman and Seth Dorman met with Andy Furr,the project manager for Certified last week. Mr.

Dorman requests ideas from the Planning Commission as to what the members like and do not like. Mr.

Dorman showed materials contributed by Mr.Furr.

Mr. Furr took pictures of a gas station in Hilliard,Ohio as an example. Certified proposes to put the

logo on the top ofthe store. All sign proposals would probably not meet the requirements ofthe code.

Mr. Furr prefers to go the brick route similar to the Hilliard store. Mr. Salvage prefers a gable roof

line for the building and canopy. Mr. Salvage stated that there should be no signage on the canopy.

Mr. Myers stated that Certified needs to design a smaller building and needs to take out the red color

shown. All agree with the logo but not in the red color shown.

Mr. Salvage stated that one problem in the past was applying to place a sign in the right ofway.

Certified has approached the Commission three to four times in the past. Mr. Salvage stated that at one

time,is'sues of parking spaces was a question. The positions at gas pumps count as parking spaces.

Mr. Burriss said he does not want to see neon signs in the windows. Mr. Dorman agreed that these

will not be allowed.

Other issues include necessary screening from the public right of for wall and hedge border which corresponds way. The Commission is looking with neighbor Fred Abraham's work. Another issue is the inability to build within the TCOD. This should not be a concern because the area has plenty of advertising as is. The Commission is encouraging monument signs on South Main.

C)Proposed Heritage Overlay District t(o replace TCOD)and amendment to Architectural Review Overlay District.

Mr. Myers suggests a separate meeting with nothing else on the agenda. Agreed meeting time is

Wednesday,October 25th at 7:30 a.m. Mr. Salvage mentioned that this should be advertised like any other meeting.

Other Business

An issue was raised by Mr. Myers regarding the sandwich board signs advertising Greystone

Antiques. The Commission had approved the sign at the time of South Main construction. Mr. Burriss

stated that the terms of the approval have not been met. The sign is up all the time and not solely for

mandated hours of operation. The signs are currently located in front of Park National Bank and one is

located on the corner of South Main Street and Broadway. Mr. Salvage suggested that the planner send a

letter to the owner mandating that the signs be removed. All were in agreement that the sign presence

creates a problem for the commission because the owner is taking a special privilege.

Mr. Myers raised the issue of drafting a resolution commending Bernie Lukco. Ms. Lucier stated

that a proclamation was completed at the last meeting. Mr. Salvage would like to have a thank you card

for all members to sign. Members questioned how to replace Lukco. Ms. Lucier replied that the opening

is advertised. The Council asks candidates to speak ifthey want to and then Village Council makes a

decision.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE ITEMS A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND

FOUND THAT THE FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE

AS PRESENTED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF OCTOBER 10. MR. BURRISS

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of September 25: Moved to last on agenda. Page 4,McDonald's Investment Hearing. Add 'of

the top ofthe sign' to condition 2 so that it reads:T "hat the front ofthe sign be mounted with the flat part

of the top of the sign no more than 6'..."

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. MYERS

SECONDED,AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meeting: October 23,2000

Adjournment: 8:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Lindsey Royce

Memorandum

To: Granville Planning Commission

From: Seth T.Donnan, Village Planner

Date:

Re:

October 19,2000

GPC Regular Meeting on Monday,October 23, 2000, 7:30 p.m.

New Business

Administrative Actions:

A) Application: 001- 42Z -oning and Architectural Permit ApplicationS -torm doors.

Location: 134 S. Mulberry St.

Applicant: Bill and Lois Foreman-Wernet

Zoning: VRD, AROD

Use: Residential

Request:

To add storm doors to the three front doors. The three front doors include; a set of double doors

and one single door around the side of the porch

Relevant Sections:

Facts:

1159.01

1159.03

1161.01

1161.05

Village DistrictP -urpose and Intent

Village DistrictP -erformance or Development Standards

Architectural Review Overlay DistrictP -urpose and Boundaries

Architectural Review Overlay District -Standards and Criteria

The applicants propose to add storm doors to the three front doors on the house. The storm doors

will be white and will be custom made by Larson Storm Doors and are on order from Granville Lumber.

Please note that the storm doors will cover,not replace, the existing doors for added protection against

the elements.

Analvsis:

Section 1161.05 -Standards and Criteria.

a)Height. Not app# cab/ e.

b) Building massing. Not applicable.

c) Roof Shape. Not app#cab/ e.

d) Materials and texture: How do they relate to the surrounding buildings?Is this compatible

with the surrounding buildings?Not apphcab/ e.

Page 1

Planning

Commission

101/920/00 Planning Commission Memorandum

e) Use ofDetails: Are the details and materials appropriate?What is the overall design concept?

Thewhite storm doorsthat are proposedwouldclosely matchthewhitetrim oftheexisting

structure.

0 Use of Live Plant Material. Planting materials should be evaluated on their use for

accentuating and highlighting the architectural details ofscreening undesirable areas such as

vacant lots,parking and mechanical equipment. Not app# cab/ e.

g) Use of Landscape Design. Other elements of exterior design that may give the

projecst/tructure additional character.Lighting is particularly important. Not appc#abe/.

tv Enhancement of Pedestrian Environment. Where possible,elements,which can contribute

to the quality ofthe pedestrian environment and other public amenities, should be promoted.

Such items as benches,fountains,awnings,seating areas,arcades,)Pedestrian routes are

particularly important. Not applicable.

i) Signage. Important to communicate the character of the building and orientated to the

pedestrian. Not applicable.

Application:

Location:

Applicant:

Zoning:

Use:

Request:

001- 37Z -oning and Architedural Permit ApplicationR -ear addition

326 W.Maple St.

Douglas and Misty Berschet

VRD, AROD

Residential

To build an addition to the rear of the home.

Relevant Sections:

1159.01

1159.03

1161.01

1161.05

Village DistrictP -urpose and Intent

Village DistrictP -erformance or Development Standards

Architectural Review Overlay DistrictP -urpose and Boundaries

Architectural Review Overlay District -Standards and Criteria

Facts:

The applicant proposes to install a 342 sci. ft. addition to the rear of the home. The addition would

line up with the existing structure at 4.3ft. from the western property line.

Please note: The application requires a variance from the side setback. The applicant has applied for

a variance and will go before the BZBA on October 26, 2000.

Analysis:

Section 1161.05 -Standards and Criteria.

a) Height. The height of the building should be measured at the ridgeline of the parapet. All new

construction shall be at the average height of the existing adjacent buildings. The proposed

addition to the rear ofthe home will be slightly shorterthan the existing structure and should

adequately blend into the existing structure.

b) Building massing. In evaluating building massing, such characteristics as the relationship of

Page 2

B

101/92/000 Planning Commission Memorandum

the building width to the building height, the buildings relationship to surrounding setbacks, the relationship to the surrounding buildings, and the spaces which are created by the building and the scale relationship are to be evaluated. 77ie height ofthe building,as stated earlier,is slightly shorter than the existing structure. The addition will line up with the existing structure at 4.3 feet from the westem property line. The scale of the new addition is proportionate to the existing structure.

c) Roof Shape. Roof shape is particularly significant in low buildings or buildings which will be seen from a distance or from above. The roofline of the proposed addition will be slightly below that ofthe existing structure,thereby not visible from the roadway,however the shape of the roof is consistentwith the existing structure and should nicely blend into the existing rooflines. d) Materials and texture: How do they relate to the surrounding buildings?Is this compatible with the surrounding buildings?77}e materials and texture to be used on the rear addition will

closely match that ofthe existing structure. The look and feel of the existing building will be duplicated with the new addition.

e) Use of Details: Are the details and materials appropriate?What is the overall design

concept?In evaluating building details, the primary concern is for appropriateness to scale and the overall design concept of the building and its environment. Once again,the rear addition

will closely match that of the existing structure,thereby constituting a good use of details used to maintain the integrity of the existing architecture..

f) Use of Live Plant Material. Planting materials should be evaluated on their use for

accentuating and highlighting the architectural details of screening undesirable areas such as vacant lots, parking and mechanical equipment. Not applicable.

g) Use of Landscape Design. Other elements of exterior design that may give the

projects/tructure additional character. Lighting is particularly important. Not applicable.

h) Enhancement of Pedestrian Environment. Where possible, elements, which can contribute

to the quality of the pedestrian environment and other public amenities, should be promoted.

Such items as benches, fountains, awnings, seating areas, arcades,)Pedestrian routes are particularly important. Not applicable.

i) Signage. Important to communicate the character of the building and orientated to the

pedestdan. Not applicable.

Application: 001- 49 S-ign Permit ApplicationT -emporary Contractors sign.

Location: 200 E. Broadway

Applicant: Greg Ream (Taylor Drug)

Zoning: VBD, AROD

Use: Commercial

Request:

To install a temporary contractors sign towards the front of the 200 E. Broadway site

where the construction of Taylor Drug will take place.

Relevant Sections:

1189.01

1189.05

1189.07

SignsP -urpose and intent

SignsG -eneral requirements

SignsT -emporary signs

Page 3

A.

C

101/920/00 Planning Commission Memorandum

Facts:

The applicant proposes to install a 32sq.ft.temporary contractors sign at the location ofthe new

Taylor Drug at 200 E. Broadway. The dimensions ofthe sign are 4 x 8ft.,with a height of 10ftfrom the

average grade. The distance from the edge of the pavement to the sign will be 15ft. The sign itselfwill

be %plyw"ood with 4x4"wood posts, all painted. The sign will have a black and white background,with

black and white lettering. A color example of the sign is in your packet.

Analvsis:

Section 1189.01 -Purpose and Intent.

The purpose of the sign regulations is to accomplish the following.

a) To protect the general safety and welfare.

W Provide for attractive and orderly appearance.

c) Encourage compatible and well planned graphics.

Section 1189.05 - General Requirements.

Signs shall not be placed or may not extend within 10ft.from the edge of the existing pavement or

in streets or rides of way,which ever is greater. The proposed temporary contracMrsign sha#s#

15ft.off the edge of Broadway' s pavement.

Section 1189.07 - Temporary Signs.

b) Contractor signs. One sign announcing the names of the contractors,sub contractors and

material suppliers participating in the construction ofthe building may be permitted during the

actual construction period. Provided that such sign shall be located only on the parcel of land

being developed and that such sign shall be limited to 16 sci. ft. in sign area, be no more than

10ft. high and a minimum of 15ft. from the established rights of way. 771e proposed sign is to

be 32sq.ft.and as such will need avariance from the sign regulation. It is proposedto be 10ft.

so the height is not an issue and shall be placed 15ft.from the edge ofthe pavementon

Broadway.

Page 4

GPC Minutes 9/11/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 11,2000

Minutes

GPC,9/11/ 00, 1

Members Present: Jack Burriss,Barbara Lucier, Bernie Lukco, Keith Myers,Richard Salvage Members Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld

Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Dale McCoy,Barbara McCoy,Fred Abraham, C.K. Barsky, Steve Breech

Minutes of August 28: MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR.

BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens' Comments:None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

New Business:

Pat Hull,Southgate Corp., Colomen Gwen Circle,Newark- Granville Road -Temporary Sign

Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposes to locate a temporary subdivision ground sign

along Newark-Granville Road at Colomen Gwen Circle. Mr. Beach said that he has received many

calls already as interest is great for the Colony Homes, and they have also received calls from people

trying to make deliveries for the construction.

Mr. Meyers asked about how long they wanted the sign up. Mr. Breech stated they were not

sure what the duration could be,but when the models were up the sign would come down. The

Commission decided on 9 months for the duration.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 00-117 WITH A LIMIT OF 9

MONTHS DURATION. MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Old Business:

Fred Abraham,456 South Main St. -Parking and Change of Siding

Mr..Dorman said the applicant has come back to the Planning Commission to discuss the

updated parking plan, and a modification he wants to make on his approved application.

A. Application Modification. Mr. Abraham said he wants to change the siding on the new

building on the south and east from vinyl to vertical steel siding. H{e showed a color sample.}

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO CONSIDER THIS A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING APPLICATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND IT

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

GPC members had questions about the exposed material on south and east side where siding

will stop, the porch, and the original proposal versus new proposal. Mr. Myers preferred that the

siding wrap around the corner a little bit because it's hard to change materials at a corner, and Mr.

Abraham agreed.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE PROPOSED MODIFICATION SUBJECT TO THE

FOLLOWING (1)THAT THE STONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WRAP 4-6' ON

THE SOUTH SIDE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, AND (2)WE APPROVE THE

GPC,9/11/ 00,2

MODIFICATION TO VERTICAL METAL SIDING ON THE EAST AND SOUTH SIDES,WITH

THE COLOR AS INDICATED ON COLOR CHARTS PRESENTED TONIGHT. MR. BURRISS

SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

B. Parking Plan. There will be a 4'stone wall around the grassy area and trees put in by the

Villagea. ndrrSC-n¤CrECES- twala.th@NA-PA9-40Er@Mr.Myers thought there was too much space

between the pair ofparking bays and suggested sliding the parking back to offer a more gracious

entrance to the building. He suggested making a 10-12'sidewalk instead of 5'from the wall to the

start of the parking area.

Mr. Myers summarized Fred's commitment to screening the parking: 1 ()screen the parking

with a 4'U-shaped stone wall from sidewalk to sidewalk,and 2()slide parking 10'from building with

5' of concrete and 5' of grass.

A discussion ensued regarding the drainage on the property related to the suggestion to expand

the green space in the area where the proposed stone wall will be erected. The intent of the suggestion

was to decrease the amount of asphalt needed and create a more efficient parking system. Mr.

Abraham felt that the suggestion was creating problems because drainage in the area is not that good

with limited catch basins. Mr. Burriss felt that positive drainage could be maintained by not requiring

the stone wall to go sidewalk to sidewalk or adjusting the slope of the lot. Finally it was decided that

Fred would keep the green space the same size as he proposed.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING

CONDITIONS ( 1)THAT THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING BE 5'

WIDE,2 ()THERE BE A 5' GRASSL/ANDSCAPING STRIP BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND

PARKING LOT,3 ()THERE BE A 4'ARTIFICIAL LIMESTONE WALL MATCHING

MATERIALS USED ON BUILDING AROUND GRASS AREA SHOWN ON PROPOSAL WITH

THE WING WALLS ENDING 2'FROM SIDEWALK,AND ( 4)THAT THE PARKING BLOCKS

BE INSTALLED PER STANDARD ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS. MR. LUKCO

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dale E.McCoy,338 North Granger St. - GaraRe

Mr. Dorman stated that the proposal is to build a 24 x 28 foot garage at the back of the

driveway. The applicant at the request of the Planning Commission has come back with revised

drawings to incorporate the old structure into the new structure.

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE;MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. McCoy said he has three cars to put in the garage,one of which will go in the back of the

proposed garage sideways,but only for storage during the winter months. Also the old shed and the

new garage will have different rooflines because the floor of the old building is 2' lower than floor of

new addition. The old building will have a walk-in door but no garage door, and the new garage will

have two 9' doors. The shed roof will be replaced.

Mr. Burriss noted the new garage will be modern,while the house is older and he

recommended consistency as much as possible. He asked for detail on the gable repeated to keep it

from looking like a standard two-car garage. Mr. McCoy said he considered repeating the cupola on

the house onto the garage.

Mr. Myers wanted to see complete details, showing doors and windows. The pitch of the roof

will be 6:12.

GPC,9/11/ 00,3

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE 00-113 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING

CONDITIONS: ( 1)THAT THE SHED ROOF ON THE EXISTING BUILDING WILL BE

REMOVED,2 ()THAT A VENT DETAIL WILL BE PUT ON THE FRONT OF THE NEW

GARAGE WHICH WILL COMPLIMENT THE VENT ON THE FRONT GABLE OF THE HOUSE,

3)THE NEW BUILDING WILL BE BUILT IMMEDIATELY AGAINST THE OLD BUILDING,

AND (4)THIS ENTIRE APPLICATION IS CONTINGENT UPON FINAL APPROVAL OF THE

DOORS AND WINDOWS AT A LATER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,AND THE

ITEMS TO SPECIFICALLY BE REVIEWED ARE LOCATION,SIZE, MATERIALS, AND

COLORS. MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Welcome to Granville"signs

GPC members had some questions after the last meeting's discussion, and the chair of the

Beautification Committee, Constance Barsky, was invited to discuss the sign with GPC.

She said sand-blasted cedar was definitely not recommended by the Beautification Committee.

The designer,Kelly, presented several designs including a similar design to the picture of the sign in

Granville, Massachusetts. The group thought this one was the most traditional with its lines, shape,

and simplicity. The committee felt the proportions were not quite right but the overall image was

liked. They liked the fan and the black on white color, having abandoned a green color. The GPC, the

other hand, would prefer a different image, such as a circle or a tree or leaves. The Beautification

Committee had not talked much about a date, but GPC members liked that idea, and Ms. Barsky said

her committee would probably not be opposed to that. Mr. Burriss preferred the more proportional

single post rather than the two posts. More discussion ensued on these items, and Mr. Myers

volunteered to work on a design for the next meeting. It was decided that this issue would probably be

a work session item for the next two GPC meetings.

Maximum Square Footage

rt 56 TI)

Mr. Salvage introduced a, elfscussion about the fact that it is hard for developers to plan a

building of less than 4,000 sq.ft/ and felt the zoning was too restrictive. Mr. Myers suggested he talk

to Village Council. Ms. Barsky said we have to consider what the citizens want, not the developers.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR "A"UNDER NEW

BUSINESS ( SOUTHGATE CORPORATION)AND "A"AND "B"UNDER OLD BUSINESS

ABRAHAM AND McCOY)AND FIND THAT THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT

SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS IDENTIFIED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF

AGENDA (SEPTEMBER 7, 2000).MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

GPC,9/11/ 00,4

Next Meeting: September 25, 2000

Adjournment:9:30 p.m.

GPC Minutes 8/28/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 28,2000

Minutes

Members Present:Jack Burriss, Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers, Richard Salvage, Carl

DRAFT

Wilkenfeld

Members Absent:Barbara Lucier

Also Present: Seth Dorman,Village Planner

Visitors Present:Betty Morrison, David Shurtz, Dale and Barbara McCoy,Holly and Barclay

Gano

Minutes of July 31: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS

PRESENTED. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Citizens'Comments:None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

New Business:

Dale E.McCoy.338 North Granger Street-New Garage

Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposes to construct a new 24'x 28' garage at the

end of the existing driveway in front of the existing structure. The trim will closely resemble

that of the house. The applicant will need variances for lot coverage and side yard setback.

Mr. McCoy provided a sample piece of vinyl siding and said the trim will be white and

materials will match house as closely as possible.

Mr. Burriss asked whether the existing garage will be torn down, and Mr. McCoy said

he would use the old one for the moment but may tear it down if there is sufficient space in the

new structure. Mr. Lukco wanted to know precisely the answer to this question, for he has a

problem with the proximity of the two garages (1' or 2' between).

Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested making the new stiucture big enough to cover the applicant's

needs. Mr. McCoy said since the new roof would be higher than the existing structure it would

not be visible from the street, but GPC members preferred a single structure. Mr. McCoy said

that would work for him. Members wanted to see fiAal drawings with architectural details with

exact door and window plans. Mr. Lukco suggested that if he reduces the size by 3 per cent or

so he would not need a lot coverage variance.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION # 00-113. MR.

SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

David Shurtz,204 Munson Street - Change of Use

Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant would like to operate a business called Lost and

Found Treasures at 204 Munson Street,the former site of the Art Project.

Mr. Shurtz described the project as a collectible retail store that would sell things such

as Martha Stewart decorating items, primitive furniture, reproductions, antiques. He would not

need any trash container. Mr. Myers said this type of store should not include appliances.

There is enough parking for 5-6 cars, and Mr. Dorman said they would need 6. Mr. Myers

said if the lower level is not used for retail, there would be enough room for parking, so long as

the applicant agreed not to use this level for retail, and Mr. Shurtz agreed.

Signage would be requested later. Mr. Lukco told Mr. Shurtz that the GPC would not

look kindly upon off-premises signs. Sandwich boards are permitted only in front of the

business and must be taken in at night.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION0 #0-114 WITH THE

FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1)THAT THE LOWER LEVEL WILL NOT BE USED FOR

RETAIL SPACE,AND 2)THAT THE ENTIRE BUILDING NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY,

SHAPE OR FORM TO SELL USED APPLIANCES, WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE

APPLICANT. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Additionally, Mr. Meyers wanted to be clear about the approval as a change of use

from a trade school to a retail operation, and that no used appliances were to be sold in the

building. Mr. Shurtz questioned whether or not a small stereo would be considered an

appliance, to which Mr. Myers said yes. Finally, it was agreed upon that small appliances

classified as antique could be sold at the store.

Bettv Morrison -129 Westgate Drive -Off- Premise Sign

Mr. Dorman was asked to introduce the application and he stated that Ms. Morrison

wants to install a ground sign at the Southeast corner of Cherry Valley Road and Westgate

Drive.

Mrs. Morrison said the application is for a smaller 1( 2x"18"g)round sign to replace

the temporary sandwich board sign at Cherry Valley and Westgate Drive. It will be 15' from

the edge of Cherry Valley on Dr. Scarpetti's lot.

Mr. Myers thought the best way to deal with visibility of all the businesses on Westgate

was through a joint sign, but Mrs. Morrison felt most owners were not interested and there was

confusion about the location of the sign. Mr. Lukeo said that since the application is not in the

AROD, we could be slightly more lenient but he would not like to make it a permanent sign,

preferring a permit period of 12 to 18 months. Mrs. Morrison said that would be acceptable,

particularly because the building is for sale. The sign would not be transferable. Mr. Salvage

thought that she should have 24 months so she doesn't have to pull the sign out of the ground in

the winter.

Mr. Burriss noticed that the sign on the building is more carefully lettered than the sign

on the application and hoped the sign could be painted professionally.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 00-116 TO PUT UP A

NEW SIGN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1)THE SIGN IS PERMITTED TO

BE UP FOR 24 MONTHS OR UNTIL BUSINESS STOPS OPERATION OR UNTIL A

MONUMENT SIGN IS INSTALLED FOR WESTGATE BUSINESSES, WHICHEVER IS

SHORTER,AND (2)THE LETTERING OF THE SIGN BE OF COLOR AND QUALITY TO

MATCH THE BUILDING SIGN ALREADY IN PLACE. MR. LUKCO SECONDED, AND

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Holly and Barclay Gano, 527 Burg Street - Garage Addition

Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposes to build a 270 square foot addition to the

existing garage.

The applicant received a variance from the BZBA on July 27, 2000. GPC met on July

31, 2000 and because questions remained about lot lines and removal of a tree and due to the

absence of the applicant, the application was tabled.

Mr. Gano said the garage was built in 1915 and is too small for gardening equipment

and a the cars.

A second letter was received from neighbor Cindy Irwin, who objected to the garage at

the last meeting, saying she would now rely upon the Village Planner's and GPC's decision

regarding the siting of the Gano garage addition. Ms. Irwin hoped that the big tree can remain.

Ms. Irwin proposed that they not have windows on the side that faces her front and side yards.

Mr. Dorman took photos of Ms. Irwin's property and measurements and verified that there

would be plenty of rear lot room to build the garage extension within the setback requirement.

That information is available for Commission members in their packets. Tim Sawyer, Tree

Surgeon, said the tree would probably not have to come down, which Mr. Gano was in favor

of.

Mr. Burriss had questions about the windows, and Mr. Gano explained how the

windows would look.

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION0 #0-104 AS SUBMITTED.

MR. SALVAGE SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR B AND C

SHURTZ AND MORRISON)UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND A UNDER OLD BUSINESS

GANO)AND FIND THAT OUR FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT

SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS DESCRIBED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF

AGENDA (AUGUST 24,2000). MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Discussion:

A. Members discussed preparing a checklist for findings of fact in order to improve

the system. Mr. Myers is working on a memo that Mr. Dorman sent him. Mr. Wilkenfeld

thought this could be postponed until a new Law Director is hired. In view of the fact that Mr.

Dorman looks up every section of the code for each application and it is carefully considered at

the meeting, this memo can just be filed with each application, saying " meets criteria"or

doesn't meet criteria for the following reasons."

B. " Welcome to Granville"signage. Members discussed a proposed sign and had

concerns, and Mr. Dorman will invite representatives from the Granville Beautification

Committee to our next meeting for a work session. Concerns were: 1( )shape of the top, 2()

shape of post tops; 3()no dates given;4 ()the little crescent;5 ()black and white color;6 ()

shouldn't be like everyone else's signage;7 ()don't sandblast it.

C. Heritage Overlay District. Village Council has drawn up an ordinance proposal to

replace TCOD and amend Architectural Review Overlay District. and wants our input.

Members have not had sufficient time to study this and requested a work session to discuss it

further. Bring to the next meeting the memo Bernie Lukco and others prepared on May 25,

2000. To the "Hudson Review"we could individualize Granville and maybe add drawings

such as are used for German Village. Mr. Burriss thought the Ordinance Proposal from Village

Council would be better than nothing for the time being and is better than what we now have.

He would be happy to volunteer on a review team. Mr. Myers suggested scheduling a work

session and calling this proposal a temporary ordinance for AROD.

Next Meeting:September 11, 2000

Adjournment:9: 10 p.m.

GPC Minutes 7/31/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 31, 2000

Minutes

DRAFT

Members Present: Jack Burris, Barbara Lucier, Keith Myers, Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent: Bernie Lukeo, Richard Salvage

Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Beth Apthorp, Barb Abraham, Fred Abraham,Jon Bennett,Reina Englehart, Daliska,Cathy Dorothy Garrett,Rob Harris, Cynthia Irwin, Susan Karian,Jeanetta Pyle,Dan Rogers, Greg Ream, Kent Smith, Tim Snider, B. Westall, L. Westall, Thelma Yates

Minutes: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRIS

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens'Comments: Dorothy Garrett 4(5 Donald Ross Drive)S -uggested the Planning Commission

develop an a"rchitectural prototype"for new businesses e(.g.,the north side of Broadway)as an example of what lo"oks like Granville."

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

New Business:

Gregory Ream. Taylor Drug:200 East Broadway -New Building

Mr. Dorman was asked to introduce the project and he stated that the applicant proposes to

construct a new building at 200 East Broadway. The building will be 10,786 square feet with 2 floors.

Taylor Drug will occupy the first floor and the second floor will either be office space or a residential

use.

Mr. Ream mentioned that he received BZBA approval for the parking variances last week and

now just needs Planning Commission approval to build t:he building. Mr. Ream then introduced the

projects architects John Oney, Rob Harris and Tim Snider. The architects explained in review that the

existing structure at 200 East Broadway would be demolished, two of the four existing curbcuts will be

removed with the remaining two being reduced in width. The described the proposal as it addressed

issues such as size and placement of the proposed building, landscaping, pedestrian amenities, use of

the old Taylor Drug Sign, building height ( to be within 6%of the average height of the surrounding

buildings, building materials and color.

Mr. Myers noticed that the stucco on the east and west elevations was a brick color in the

renderings, but Mr. Harris said it would match the limestone. Mr. Harris explained that the stucco

would match the color in the renderings.

A resident, Richard Mayhard, asked if the front facade of the proposed building lines up with

the bank's columns or its walls. Mr. Harris answered that it will line up with the bank's columns. Mr.

Wilkenfeld asked how closely does the proposed building's front setback line up with other storefronts

along Broadway, west of Prospect. Mr. Snider said the proposed building lines up almost identically

with surrounding storefronts.

Ms. Lucier mentioned a resident asked her to ask the architects if sometime in the future the

owner of the building wanted to complete the second floor, would the first floor be strong enough to

bear the load, and Mr. Harris said yes, that the proposed building would be steel-framed.

Mr. Wilkenfeld mentioned that in the work session, Mr. Ream stated he might need to install a

prescription drop-off area to stay competitive with the national chains, and Mr. Wilkenfeld wondered if

Mr. Ream was prepared to do this if needed. Mr. Ream stated that holes would be left in the wall for

that possibility and the pharmacy would be placed such that it would accommodate a future drop-off.

Mr. Myers asked if other light fixtures could be used on the east and west facades, and he told that the architects was wanted to show massing, scale and location of fixtures on the plan, but t:hat they

would like to work with Mr. Dorman using cut sheets to ultimately choose the light fixtures.

Mr. Myers noticed that brick screening walls are used in the renderings, but that wood

screening walls are shown on the drawings, and he was told that the architects learned that they needed

brick screening walls after the plan was submitted.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED WITH

THREE ( 3)CONDITIONS: 1)THAT ALL SCREEN WALLS BE BRICK, 2)THAT APPLICANT

BRING LIGHTING DETAILS BACK TO MR. DORMAN FOR STAFF REVIEW AND

APPROVAL,AND 3)THAT APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH 1147.03 WITH RESPECT TO

CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF SIGNAGE VARIANCE. MR. BURRIS SECONDED, AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bruce Westall,222 South Mulberry - Porch

Mr. Dorman was asked to introduce the project and he stated that the applicant proposes to

construct a 6' x 10' elevated porch attached to the rear of the house. The existing porch stoop is

deteriorated and must be replaced.

Mr. Westall explained that he owns the property at 222 South Mulberry and his mother, who

lives there, can no longer go out the back door. Mr. Westall stated that he had to apply for a variance

for a side yard setback, which was approved last week ( July 27, 2000)by BZBA.

Mr. Wilkenfeld asked if the applicant is replacing what is there with something the exact same

size, and Mr. Westall said no, that it would be larger. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked if the applicant was using

the same materials, and Mr. Westall stated that he would be using treated lumber instead of what is

there.

Mr. Burris asked if the applicant proposes a finish for the porch, such as stain or paint, and

Mr. Westall said he will stain it but he does not know what color.

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

BURRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Holly and Barclay Gano.527 Burg Street - Garage Addition

Mr. Dorman was asked to introduce the project and he stated that the applicant proposes to

build an addition to the existing garage. The addition would be approximately 13' x 21',adding an

additional 272 square feet for a total garage size of 732 square feet.

Ms. Lucier said that she was contacted by the applicant indicating that he could not be at the

meeting, and he hoped that the Planning Commission would find it possible to go forth with

consideration of the application for which he received a variance from the BZBA last Thursday night

Uuly 27, 2000).

A resident and neighbor of the Ganos, Cindy Irwin addressed the Commission in protest of the

Gano's garage addition. Ms. Irwin felt the addition would come too close to her property. She was

upset that they would have to remove another large tree. Ms. Irwin proposed that they build the

addition on the other side of the existing garage. Ms. Irwin stated that the property boundary drawing

the applicant submitted was inaccurate and that her property line was larger than it showed. Mr. Burris

showed her the Licking County Tax Map, included in the commission member's packet, and it was

consistent with the boundary drawing Mr. Gano submitted. Ms. Irwin said she could be wrong, and

recommended that someone come and look at her property. Mr. Dorman was instructed to take photos

of Ms. Irwin's property and measurements to verify the setback of the existing garage, and to have that

information available for Commission members at the next meeting.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION UNTIL THE NEXT

MEETING. MR. BURRIS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dan Rogers. 210 East Maple Street - Patio Addition, Driveway

Mr. Dorman was asked to introduce the project and he stated that the applicant wants to replace

the existing 8' x 65' driveway and to install a 24' x 56' rear patio.

Mr. Wilkenfeld asked if the gravel patio would be extended into the lawn area, and Mr. Rogers

said the area to the west would be increased by a third. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked if the shed shown in the

site plan was still standing, and Mr. Rogers said yes, but it will be removed.

Mr. Myers asked if a variance was needed for the side yard setback. Mr. Dorman explained

that the issue was discussed with Mr. Rogers and that Mr. Rogers had indicated he would only build to

the required 10' setback line.

Mr. Burris asked if the gravel would be edged in any way to contain it, and Mr. Rogers said

there would not be any gravel, the patio will be concrete.

Mr. Burris asked Mr. Rogers if he could address the drainage issue, and Mr. Rogers said that

there are drains all over that property, I just put underground drainage all the way to the front street

between corner of Prospect and Maple).Ms. Lucier asked if you cover the surface with concrete

wouldn't that affect the drainage. Mr. Myers stated that presumably the lot drains at some point. Mr.

Rogers said that he has two drains behind the garage and he will have two drains to the north of the slab

rear approximately where the shed is currently located. In addition, Mr. Rogers said he has drains on

each corner of the garage and house and they all together in one 4"pipe to the Village storm sewer.

Mr. Burris stated that a new dimension for the rear patio needed to be established and the

Commission decided the rear patio should be approximately 24' x 53' to meet the 10 foot side yard

setback requirement.

Ms. Lucier asked if the applicant anticipated the concrete slab being a part of the patio,

driveway or a parking area, and Mr. Rogers said a driveway maybe a table and some chairs. Ms.

Lucier said so it will not be a parking area, and Mr. Rogers said no.

Ms. Lucier asked why the Commission was considering another project of Mr. Rogers when

the garage issue is not resolved, and she asked Mr. Rogers to comment on the status of the garage.

Mr. Rogers stated that the additional details requested including window and siding styling has not been

finalized.

Mr. Westall, Dan Rogers neighbor, stood and said that he believes Dan does good work and

that the neighbors would like him to finish everything. He mentioned that this week, Mr. Rogers began

painting the house and it looked good, and that overall the neighbors are very supportive.

Mr. Burris and Mr. Wilkenfeld agreed that they would be more comfortable approving the

application with more details. Mr. Myers said that the remaining issues could be dealt with in approval

conditions.

MR. BURRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH TWO (2)CONDITIONS:

1)THAT APPLICANT MEET THE MINIMUM TEN-FOOT SIDE SETBACK AT THE CLOSEST

POINT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PATIO (ADJUSTING THE SIZE OF THE CONCRETE

SLAB ACCORDINGLY)A,ND 2)THAT THERE BE NO PARKING ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF

THE PATIO PAST THE WESTERN WALL OF THE EXISTING GARAGE. MR. WILKENFELD

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Fred Abraham.456 South Main Street R -emodel,Addition

Mr. Dorman was asked to introduce the project and he stated that the applicant purposes to

remodel the subject property to provide retail space. The building faqade will consist of synthetic stone

and cedar siding.

Commission members asked various questions about the building details, including the roof,

siding,doors, exterior lighting,and outdoor faucets.

Mr. Burris mentioned that the last time the Commission was concerned about the site plan

details. Commission explained to Mr. Abraham how he could optimize parking and green space. The

Commission members decided it would be appropriate to approve the building portion of the project so

construction could begin,but the applicant was instructed to bring back a more detailed site plan for

final approval.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUILDING PORTION OF THE

APPLICATION PENDING FINAL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN.

MR. BURRIS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Discussion:

A. The meeting scheduled for August 14,2000 was cancelled since there were no applications

to review. A possible recess for August in future years will be discussed at a later time.

Finding of Fact:

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR B, C,AND E

UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND FIND THAT OUR FINDINGS

ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS LISTED IN THE

VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF AGENDA. MR. BURRUS SECONDED, AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meeting: August 28.

Adjourned:10:07 p.m.

GPC Minutes 6/26/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 26,2000

Minutes

DRAFT

Members Present: Jack Burriss,Barbara Lucier,Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers,Richard

Salvage,Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent:

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: John & Kelli Graban,Maxine Montgomery,Florence and Bill Hoffman,

Maureen Driscoll,Fred Abraham,Ron Fenstermaker,Greg Ream,Kevin Reiner,Tim Snider,

Rob Harris,John Thornborough,Katie Thornborough,Sharon Sellitto,Bill Wernet,Kent

Smith,Jo Carey- Carlisle,John Oney

Citizens'Comments: none

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak

Minutes ofJune 10:As members have not had time to review the minutes,they will be

considered at the next meeting.

New Business:

Public Hearing

Ron Fenstermaker,130 North Main -Rezoning to VBD

The applicant wishes to convert this residential house to office space. The finding of

GPC would be a recommendation to Village Council.

Mr.Fenstermaker explained that he has rented to students for 14 years. He is

thinking of selling the property because he lives so far away and makes a couple of trips

every year to maintain it. The growth of Granville demands additional commercial services,

and North Main is not conducive for residential or rental property because of all the truck and

heavy traffic. A business in the house would help preserve the unit,whereas a rental might

be detrimental. He has two parking spaces but would need three.He thought he and his

neighbor ( Mr.Thornborough)could plan a common area between the houses,which would

take some off-street parking spaces..His purposes are not to make money on commercial use

but to preserve the house.

Mr.Thomborough,138 N. Main St.,who owns the house next door,stated that they

tried to rezone three years ago. He remembers the GPC was concerned that no more property

should be converted to commercial,though people seemed willing to consider a special use.

They could not come up with more off-street parking but his view is that Granville probably

does not need to insist upon off- street parking. One can always park somewhere in the

Village. He is in favor of changing all four properties in the residential zoning on that corner

to commercial.

Michael Allen,who owns the house across the street,rented the upstairs to students

and lived downstairs while he was a professor. When he left Denison,he maintained it as a

student rental. With all the expensive homes ringing Granville,he feels a need for more

commercial property downtown. If this is not done,suburban sprawl is encouraged and the

sense of a central community is lost. There are few cars in the Presbysterian lot next door,

and the village is rich with parking spaces. He would recommend a zoning change.

Sharon Sellitto asked whether there are a lot of businesses eager to find rentals. Mr.

Fenstermaker said he has heard from several interested people,particularly 2-title compan s

and a lawyer.

Jo Carey Carlisle is concerned that other rentals will become commercial and prefers

2

GPC Minutes,June 26,2000,2

renting to families than to businesses.

Mr.Lukco has some concerns with the application: 1 ()he is generally opposed to

removal of residential properties in favor of commercial. He does not feel the Village should

be a business district for homes on the outskirts. He would like to keep as many homes

residential as possible. 2 ()Parking is another concern

Mr.Wilkenfeld agrees and he is afraid of the domino effect. He likes the idea of

mixed use,and a lot of villages have died because there are no residences downtown. There

are not enough low-cost houses in Granville,and he would like to see this property remain

residential.

Mr. Burriss was in favor of all three properties going commercial when it came up

before. He sits on the Granville Business and Professional Association and they have been in

favor of continued growth of downtown area,and a number of businesses have approached

GBPA about using space. Those houses have been commercial in the past. It would make a

good small office. One ofthe goals ofthe Master Plan is to continue to keep the heart ofthe

village strong,so some expansion would be necessary.

Mr. Salvage agreed with Mr. Burriss and thinks it makes sense to make the rest ofthe

block commercial and to continue to allow growth of the business area. He thinks GPC has a

lot of control over what goes on in the historic district and thinks a business would be

something in character and not detrimental. Schools would benefit from increased taxes.

Forcing these houses to remain residential forces them to remain rentals

Ms. Lucier said she has changed her mind since this question came up before and

does not think the commercial area should be expanded at this time. She likes living

downtown and thinks other families should have this opportunity also. She does not think

North Main is more difficult than North Pearl with truck traffic

Mr. Myers stated that the previous application included several properties on that corner. A

zoning change is irreversible, but there are conditional uses possible. Many houses have been

converted to commercial,but to remain vitalized,the character needs to remain residential.

He also thinks the truck traffic is worse on North Pearl.Looking at the corner

comprehensively might be easier than looking at a single application.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO VILLAGE COUNCIL THAT

THE PROPERTY BE REZONED FROM VRD TO VBD. MR. BURRISS

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY DENIED ( Mr. Salvage and

Mr. Burriss voted AYE and Mr. Myers,Mr.Wilkenfeld and Mr.Lukco voted NAE.)

Kelli and John Graban, 201 North Pearl StreetF -ence

Ms. Wimberger stated that the applicants wish to add a wooden picket fence on the

College Street side of this corner, stained white to match the house trim. Mrs. Graban stated

that they have a small courtyard. They would like to fence in from front porch down the

drive to enclose a little patio. She described in detail the location and appearance ofthe

proposed fence. She said there was one small change: The gate pickets will not be at an

angle but will go straight,with no arches.D (rawing submitted)

Mr. Burriss thought with a fence right along the sidewalk,it would be recommended

to set the fence back a foot for trimming grass and maintaining sidewalk,and Mrs. Graban

was agreeable but the lawnmower needs enough room to get through. It was decided there

would be enough room and the first buffer was appropriated.

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE

FOLLOWINGCONDITIONS: ( 1)SET IT BACK ONE FOOT FROM THE

SIDEWALK; 2 ()GATES TO USE THE SAME STYLE PICKET AS REST OF

FENCE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

P.

GPC Minutes,June 26,2000,3

Florence Honf,an,508 West College Street L-ot Combination

Corner ofThresher C&ollege Streets)Mrs.Hoffman stated 2 yrs ago they

purchased the property on which they have an easement for their driveway from Denison

University. They would like to combine these two lots into one property to preserve

greenspace and prevent another house from being built on the open lot in the future.

MR.WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION TO COMBINE THE

TWO LOTS. MR.BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Fred Abraham,456 South Main StreetR -emodelingA/ddition

Mr.Abraham said the structure is sound but he wants to add 9'9"to west end to bring

the building in line with the NAPA building front. The building needs new siding,new metal

galvanized roof w(hich would not be visible from below)a,nd synthetic stone s(ample

limestone was shown)a,nd he showed GPC the location and appearance ofthe plan. The

Thrift Shop would probably be the tenant.There would be two display picture windows,and

windows beside the door would be 6'x8' ( not to scale and flipped from what is in the

drawingT).here would be a 5' sidewalk in front.

Mr. Myers thought a hedge would be a good addition to the front between the

sidewalk and the lot to screen the parking.

Mr. Burriss asked about signage,and Mr. Abraham said that would be up to the

tenants. Mr.Burriss would like to see a more accurate drawing,and Mr. Lukco wanted to see

the site plan,scale drawing,elevations,and landscape elevation plan.Mr. Abraham will

provide this when he returns to the GPC.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION,

PER AGREEMENT OF THE APPLICANT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Waite and Jo Carey Carlisle,424 East College Street -Fence

The applicants would like to: 1( )widen the driveway 8',2 ()put a new stone retaining

wall along east lot line,3 ()add gates and arbors,4 ()add 6' picket fence,and 5( )a cedar deck

with arbor. The deck would be raised about 3'.They need more room for off-street parking

since they are parking on the grass now. She thought no additional curbcut would be needed.

Ms. Wimberger stated this application would need BZBA approval of side yard setbacks

variances for the driveway and deck. He thought it should start at the line of the house rather

than at the road.

Mr.Myers made several suggestions about location of the driveway for aesthetic

reasons.

Ms. Carlisle said they would like to have the deck extend from back of the house out

16' and raised up 3'.

A 6'fence is needed for privacy from the alley and maybe a lower fence on the side.

There were railroad ties to a retaining wall which the neighbor took out,and the

applicants are 12' above their neighbors on the east. The rock retaining wall is a replacement

and will have lattice fence on top of the wall to shield a storage area ( bike,etc)they will

create.

Mr. Burriss wanted to see the deck on paper. He asked if the fence was what the

applicant really plans to do. It is a very nice,ornate fence. What the GBC approves is what

must be build.

Mr. Myers stated that we could deal with the fence now. If her husband doesn't want

7

GPC Minutes,June 26,2000,4

to do what is approved they can come back to GPC with a modification.

MR.SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE

FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ( 1)DRIVEWAY EXPANSE IS REQUIRED TO

START AT THE PORCH LINE AND GO BACK FROM THERE;2 ()MAINTAIN

GRASS LINE BEFORE DRIVE;3 ()USE EXISTING CURBCUT; 4( )GPC

APPROVES FENCE ENCIRCLED IN DRAWING BUT GIVES APPLICANT THE

OPTION TO HAVE UP TO ZERO SPACE BETWEEN PICKETS ALONG ALLEY

AND IT MAY BE SHORTER THAN 6' ON SIDES; 5( )DECK WILL BE LIKE

THE PICTURE BUT IT WILL BE ELEVATED WITH WOOD ARBOR FLOOR

AND THE TRELLIS TO COVER ENTIRE DECK;6 ()DRIVEWAY AND DECK

REQUIRE BZBA VARIANCE APPROVAL. MR.WILKENFELD SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Any changes in the fence will require applicant's return to GPC.

Kevin Reiner,215 South Cherry Street -Fence

The applicant wishes to build a fence along front and side yard property lines. Mr.

Reiner showed sample ofthe actual 42"picket fence and described it in detail. It will be 3"

offthe ground and stained white to match the house. The pickets will have an " ace"like

head. They will work around the existing trees.

Mr. Myers praised applicant's presentation. He thought fence should be 1' behind

the ROW line in case a sidewalk eventually was put in or work needed to be done in the

ROW.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH

FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ( 1)FENCE IN FRONT OF HOUSE SET BACK 1'

FROM ROW. 2 ()FENCE ON NORTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE A(S AGREED TO

BY NEIGHBORS).MR.BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Mr.Salvage wanted it noted in the minutes that minor modifications are OK as long

as the fence is moved closer to the house and he maintains trees as much as possible.

Work Session:

Taylor DrugStore2 0-0 E.Broadwayn -ew building

Greg Ream stated they wish to build a new building for the drugstore and rent the

existing location. John Oney from Architectural Alliance,showed a detailed proposal and

said they have surveyed the property 2(00 E.Broadway)T.here will be a community display

window accessible with an outdoor key.

Tim Snider,Engineer,said he met with Jerry Turner,of Bird &Bull,Village

engineer, for engineering details. His concern was with storm water runoff,and this has

been addressed. There would be zero setback on west side and the front. The Woeste

building is closer by 2' or so. The front would line up with the bank portico. They will

eliminate two curbcuts and narrow the others. There would be one- way traffic around the

building with angle parking. There would be landscaping and sidewalk and one tree might be

removed but replaced. They wittleave the greenscape along the north hedge will be trimmed

or replaced. Parking is available for 33 cars with prescription drop-off ( but not pick-up)for

one car. Taylor ground sign will be moved to new location.

The architect,Rob Harris,explained the materials to be used. All material limestone,

brick and stucco. He noted the building design and how it integrates with existing Village

GPC Minutes,June 26,2000,5

buildings to maintain the unique character and pedestrian atmosphere.

Mr.Lukco and Mr. Wilkenfeld thought the west and east facades had no interesting

features but the other sides look great. Others agreed,and the architect showed some other

samples of design for those sides. GPC offered suggestions,ie;fake windows ( bigger than

shown)li,ghts. Mr.Burriss objected to the short brick wall and would prefer plants for

screening the parking lot.

Announcements: Mr.Burriss wants to recommend to Village Council a commendation to

Kathryn Wimberger for her professionalism,organizationa,n.d a lot ofthings that have

improved our job. She is a terrific person,and she has made our job easier from her end with

paperwork,etc.,so we can concentrate on architectural details. He would like to see Village

Council give her a commendation. Mr.Salvage seconded,and it was enthusiastically

approved.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT WE FIND THE FINDINGS FOR A,B,C,E,F UNDER

NEW BUSINESS AND THE FINDING OF FACT FOR THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

WHICH WAS READ AND AGREED UPON AT THIS TIME ARE CONSISTENT WITH

THE APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS LISTED IN THE VILLAGE

PLANNER'S MEMO OF AGENDA. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next meeting:July 10 and July 24 (Mr. Lukco will be absent at both;Mr. Salvage absent

July 24;Mr. Wilkenfeld is not sure about July 24)

Adjourned: 10:30 p.m.

GPC Minutes 6/12/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 12,2000

Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss,Barbara Lucier,Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers,Richard

Salvage,Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent:

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner,Lindsey Royce,Planning Intern

Visitors Present: Scott Rawson ( SentineD,Robert Seith,Richard Pinkerton,Ron Kendle Ray

Riska and Joe Smiley M( cDonaldsD),on Contini,Norm Ingle,Phil Pavlovitz Speedway),

Constance Barsky,Martha Tavener,Jon Raymond,Rich Cherry,Scott Brand

Citizens' Comments: The Chair stated that the GPC is in receipt of a letter from Tracee

Karaffa in opposition to Kendal at Granville's locating on Burg Street.

Mr. Salvage noted that the Presbyterian Church is not on the agenda tonight. Later in

the meeting it was decided that Ms. Wimberger would type up the Finding of Fact utilizing

the Minutes of May 8.

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak

Minutes of May 8:MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MAY 8 MINUTES AS

REVISED. MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Minutes of May 22: MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS

PRESENTED. MR BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROLVED.

New Business

Martha Tavener,112West Elm StreetE -nclose Porch

Ms. Tavener wishes to glass- in the screen porch in the rear with customized

windows. The new windows willlook much the same as the screening does,with the same

dividers. She will not be changing any dimensions.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED.

MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Don Contini,315 North Pearl Street G-arage

Ms. Wimberger stated that the proposed detached garage is 1' wider than on the

application. Mr. Contini now proposes the garage to be 22'x 22' 4(84 SF).The applicant

already has a variance. Access to the garage would be from Summit Street via a shared

driveway.

Mr. Contini stated he was somewhat uncertain as to the exact boundary line, since the

two neighbor's surveys were different,with a discrepancy of 3'.Ifthey use the Karaffa

survey,the Contini garage will be 12' offthe lot line and variance will not be needed. The

barn siding color will match arbors ( natural weathered)in rear yard and the roof shingles will

match those on the house. The other change from the application is that he prefers two 9'

doors to the one 16'door. He wants it to look more like a barn. The garage is barely ( if at all)

visible from Pearl Street. There will be a side door and two rear windows.

Mr. Burriss noted that the application specifies horizontal siding and he asked for

Af.

v

A

5%

GPC Minutes, June 12,2000

further particulars. Mr. Contini said he is not talking about vinyl or board he and batten;rather, wants tongue and groove plywood horizontal sheeting. He may install vertical sheeting on the eave. The Commission believes vertical siding on the upper portion ( eave area)ofthe

garage would be appropriate. There will be cornice trim boards with a weathered look.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE

FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ( 1)WIDTH OF GARAGE BE EXPANDED TO 22';

2)DOUBLE DOOR BE REPLACED BY TWO 9'SINGLE DOORS;3 ()SIDING

ABOVE DOORS TO BE VERTICAL. MR. LUKCQ SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Pippin Hill General Store,113 NorthProspectS -igns

Norm Ingle,Owner,wishes to place a sandwich board on the corner of Broadway

and North Prospect. It would be 40'from the edge ofthe pavement on Broadway,since there

is insufficient space for a sandwich board in front ofthe store. He said there has been

precedent for an off- premises sign,but GPC said the other one was a temporary sign. Ifthis

application is to be approved,GPC must grant a variance. Criteria in Section 1189.10 do not

allow sandwich boards at any other location than the front of the building.

Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether there could be a combined identification sign for those

businesses on Prospect Street. Mr. Lukco is concerned about setting a precedent with the

proposed sandwich board. There could eventually be two or three ofthem on the same

corner. Mr. Salvage would have no problem with a temporary sign in place until such time as

the Village enacts a joint directional sign. He thought the applicant might try a joint

directional sign with the neighboring businesses as a new application. Mr. Ingle has no

problem with this. He has talked with GBPA about standardizing sandwich boards.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR SANDWICH BOARDS.

MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY DENIED,

The Commission suggested Mr. Ingle talk with neighboring businesses and come up with a

joint directional sign to propose as a new application.

126 North Prospect Street;Village Coffee Company,Jon Raymond- Two signs

Ms. Wimberger stated there are two signs desired: ( 1)a sandwich board in front of

the business ( 8 square feet)and (2)a wall sign same size and color as the existing sign ( 8

square feet)T.he sandwich board will require a variance from GPC (1189.06)because it is in

the ROW.

The Commission thought that in view ofthe fact that signs on Broadway are larger,it

would be inconsistent to deny the applicant these signs where there is plenty of space

available.

Mr. Burriss asked about the red color,and Mr. Raymond agreed to use a subtler paint

color. The Village Planner or the Village Manager will approve final color.

The variance criteria under 1147.03 were applied to the application:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land

or structure involved and which are not applicable to other lands or

structures in the same zoning districts. There is sufficient space in front of the

front door for the sign.

B. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would

deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the

same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. Yes,it would

2

GPC Minutes,June 12, 2000

deprive him of these rights.

C That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions

of the applicant.N/A

D. That the grant ofthe variance will not confer on the applicant any undue

privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the

same zoning district. There would be no undue privilege.

E That the granting ofthe variance will in no other manner adversely affect

the health,safety and general welfare ofthe persons residing or working

within the vicinity ofthe proposed variance. No adverse effects would occur.

Pinkerton RealtyR/ealmMortgage,Ron Kendle,116 West BroadwayS -ign

The applicants wish to add a hanging wood sign a(pproximately 1 square foot=18"x

8"to)the metal awning to replace the existing sign. R "ealm Mortgagew"ould be written in

burgundy with a gray background.

This would require a variance approval. Signs are ordinarily painted on cloth

awnings. Criteria from 1147.03 were applied:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land

or structure involved and which are not applicable to other lands or

structures in the same zoning districts. The existing awning was installed

before the ordinances went into effect.

B. A.literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would

deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the

same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. Yes,it would

deprive him ofthese rights.

C That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions

of the applicant.N/A. Mr. Kendle leases the building.

D. That the grant of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue

privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the

same zoning district. There would be no undue privilege.

E That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect

the health,safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working

within the vicinity of the proposed variance. No adverse effects would occur.

MR.WILKENFELD MOVED THAT APPLICATION FOR SIGN BE APPROVED

AS SUBMITTED. GPC FINDS THAT APPLICATION MEETS CRITERIA FOR

VARIANCE. MR BURRISS SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Old Business:

Rich Cherry, 223 SouthMain StreetF -ence

Mr. Cherry explained that with regard to the previously approved fence application,

the brochure he received from Lowe's was quite different from the fence available when he

went to buy it. It has very wide spaces,poorly made and is not appropriate,so he decided to

make his own fencing with doge- ars s(ame cut as the stockade fence in the rear yard)It. is

treated lumber and later he will submit a color sample for approval. He is seeking a

modification at this time. He showed a color picture and sample of fencing he wishes to use.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THIS IS A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE

2

GPC Minutes, June 12, 2000

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATION. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE REDESIGNED FENCE AS

PRESENTED IN THE MODIFIED APPLICATION THIS EVENING. MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Sessions:

Speedway and McDonald's,Southwest Corner ofCherry Valley and Rt.16

Representatives from both companies were present to discuss their proposed

buildings, the front of each would face Rt. 16,and most ofthe activity would be in the rear.

There is a proposed drive- through at the fast- food restaurant. There is a third lot,which has

no designated tenant at this time. The out lot a(t*the corner ofthe Speedway and Super

America Way)has no building plans shown on the site plan. The representatives feel this is a

service definitely needed. Super America applied for a business several years ago ( in the,

courts)a,nd this is a fresh new approach and they want to work through the community.

Mr. Myers reviewed the fact that there were long and controversial discussions at that

time,and everyone did their best to integrate the codes with the business. We felt the

application was consistent with the code but now the codes have been changed and to be fair

we need to apply the PCD code as it is today. Mr. Myers would encourage them to follow the

PCD development standards code very carefully rather than to have GPC tell them what to do

tonight. He sees as one concern the lot on the corner with the undetermined tenant. He does

not want to play games with the applicants. It would appear that the lot might be intended to

locate a car wash.

Mr. Wilkenfeld reminded them that these are conditional uses and must be approved

by BZBA first.

Mr. Lukco is concerned about the aesthetic integrity. Take a look at our downtown

aretahe-architecture,landscaping,and signs,etca.-nd- get a feel for it. Replicate it the best

you can. He felt the applicants would have a lot of mountains to push in order to please those

discontents from the previous application.

Mr. Salvage stated that Section 1171. 02 specifies no drive-throughs. Mr. Smiley

McDonalds)thought this property came under exemptions to that rule,but he was told this

now comes under the new PCD. McDonald's would require a drive- through.

Legal Counsel is required here,and Mr. Smiley will submit a formal question to Mr.

Hurst via Ms. Wimberger.

Also,a detailed site plan,a lighting design,a landscape plan,and proposed signage

would all be required. Hours of operation,pop machines and mulch piles outside might be a

problem.

Reports:

A. Mr. Lukco reported on his and Ms. Wimberger's trip to Hudson,Ohio,to study their

planning process. { Please see his memo presented with the agenda tonight. }

B. Ms. Wimberger has submitted her resignation and will pursue graduate studies at OSU.

GPC members expressed their regret at her leaving and gave thanks for all her work.

2

GPC Minutes,June 12,2000

Other matters:

Fackler's mixed use development;1920 NewarkG-ranville Road

Ms. Wimberger stated in her memo that Mr. Fackler has requested an extension of

the expired zoning permit for his proposed development. Village Council would like a

recommendation from GPC and BZBA before they consider this request. Mr.Fackler is not

present tonight h(e was here briefly,but is no longer).

The deadline for construction and conditional use has expired and Mr.Fackler was

expected to be present this evening. Ms. Wimberger has talked to the Law Director and there

are three possibilities for Mr. Fackler to pursue with this project: 1 ()IfMr.Fackler wants to

execute what was proposed,he must present to Village Council some extenuating

circumstances that show he was not alloweda/ble to proceed2; ()ifthings have changed with

the project,Mr.Fackler must submit a new application to GPCB/ ZBA; 3 ()Ifconditional uses

went away it would be a new application to GPC ( unless variances are involved,which

requires BZBA reviewt)h;erefore,he would either go to GPCB/ZBA or to Village Council

for extension with extreme circumstances.

Ms. Lucier will report GPC's discussion to Village Council.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT FOR A,B,C,D,E

UNDERNEW BUSINESS AND A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND FIND THAT OUR

FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF THE CODE

AS LISTED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF AGENDA. MR. BURRISS

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next meeting: Monday,June 26 and July 10

Adjourned: 9:30 p.m.

GPC Minutes 5/22/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 22,2000

Minutes

DRAFT

MWeilmkebtiefersldPresent: Jack Burriss,Barbara Lucier,Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers,Richard Salvage,Carl

Members Absent:

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present:Scott Rawson S( entinel)M,ary E. Bline,Robert Seith,Virginia and Robert Abbott,James RAorgcehr,sJim Fowler,Richard Pinkerton,Caroline and Richard Fetter,James R Cooper,Ned Roberts,Dan

Citizens'Comments:

Bob Seith had concerns re GPC's Minutes ofMay 8,which to him had procedural flaws, Two questions were up to a vote: 1()whether the alley ought to be returned to the agreed upon and specified width of 16'and 2( )whether removing parking from that space would be a successful solution of not widening it. As the discussion migrated,emphasis moved to the question of keeping the parking. That was not an issue within the church's purview,but is up to the Village. The alley is narrower than it was two years ago. Cars have continued to get wider and in the coupling of those two issues and reaching a single decision,important issues were missed. He would ask GPC to take it under reconsideration.

As Mr.Myers recalled,the discussion was to consider a minor modification to reduce the alley from 16' to 15'.Parking was technically a Village issue,not the church's. He did ask Mr. Seith and Mr. Acklin whether it would be OK to leave it at 15' and leave the parking,which is less than ideal. Both agreed this

would be OK.The actual decision was made not based on the parking although we were sympathetic. We felt 15' was adequate.

Mr. Seith said that because of the way these two issues were coupled,people did not agree, and felt

15'was not wide enough. There is not enough room to maneuver and cars must ride over the curb,and it's not wide enough for trucks.

Richard Pinkerton stated that this issue was brought to the attention of the church and the Village in

December when they noticed the alley was substantially narrower. Parking in the middle spot is difficult.

Construction vehicles went up over the curb.The contractor should settle this matter with an enforcement

bond in order to honor his commitment. Before,the corner flared out more,but they nipped it. Nobody in

the church took action,and the thrust of their concern seemed to be protecting the hemlock trees. Mr.

Pinkerton recommended widening the alley to the compressors and give additional sidewalk space, but the

church was not interested. He felt the neighbors should have been notified when GPC discussed the matter.

Mr. Salvage would like to see the width remeasured and the curb radius checked. Mr. Myers

suggested that the Village Engineer prepare a drawing and survey and give curb radius. We want to compare what it was before,what was proposed and,and what it is now. Mr. Lukco would also like to invite to the

meeting whoever is in charge of alleys. Mr. Salvage thought the GPC was thinking of alley width,not the

curb.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT WE PUT ON THE NEXT MEETING AGENDA THAT WE ARE

THINKING OF RECONSIDERING THIS,BASED ON THE TECHNICAL FINDINGS OF THE VILLAGE

ENGINEER. MR.LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR.BUIRRISS

RECUSED HIMSELF).

Richard Cherry stated that residents on South Main have called to the police's attention the fact that

people drive too fast through the construction. The Village should put up some s"low"signs. Mr.Myers

suggested he talk to Mr. Hickman,and Ms. Lucier took note for Village Council.

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak

Minutes: April 24,2000: On Page 2 under Fuson,change H"eritage Overlay District"to TCOD.

May 8. Since there was some concern about recording the meeting,Ms. Wimberger and Ms.

r.

GPC Minutes May 22,2000

Allen will listen to the tapes and make any revisions necessary.

MR.SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE MAY 8 MINUTES PENDING CORRECTIONS. MR.LUKCO

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Sign Code: MR.LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN CODE MINUTES. MR.BURRISS

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROLVED.

New Business:

Fetter Electrical Contractors,80 Westgate Drive - New building

Dick and Caroline Fetter wish to construct a 4788 sq.ft.building which would house the electrical

business and the Horse treats businessa (conditional use permit has been requested from theBZBA).This

project was discussed at a work session in December,and Mr.Lukco thought everything discussed then was

incorporated into the application.a building is already on-site. The electrical business will utilize it for office

space. There is sufficient parking for all uses. Tree and Landscape Commission will review the landscape

plan and BZBA will consider the conditional use application this week. The Village engineer will also

review the drainage issues.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR ZONING & ARCHITECTURAL PERMIT

SUBJECT TO BZBA APPROVAL AND SUBJECT TO TREE AND LANDSCAPE COMMISSION

APPROVAL. MR.BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Greystone Country House,128 South Main Street -Change ofuse

Mary Bline wishes to change the use from residential and office to retail and office. They are

hoping to move their residence someplace else ifthis business change works. There are two buildings:one

for the office and one for painting business and residence. They want to join both offices in the residential

building. The business use ofthe property would not affect the parking associated with the business. Ms.

Bline said that the majority ofher customers are walk-ins who have parked somewhere else.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.LUKCO SECONDED,

AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITYM (R.WILKENFELD ABSTAINED).

Z.

VirginiaAbbott,c o (ntractorU-rban Environments1)0,98 NewarkG-ranville Road F-ence and Landscaping

Virginia and Robert Abbott wish to add a fence and landscaping within the TCOD and

remove the existing planting berm island along the driveway.

James Arch explained the exact location and said that the fence would be screened from the road by

hemlocks and other plantings. He showed photographs ofthe residence and stated the privacy fence will

match one of the house colors. The fence is 6 feet tall.

MR.WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW THE FOUNTAIN PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. THE FENCE

COLOR WILL MATCH ONE OF THOSE ON THE HOUSE. MR.LUKCO SECONDED. MOTION WAS

APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

Joseph and Karen Hickman,326 North Granger Street B-asement under House

Mr.Hickman explained that they have a short basement under part of the house and a crawl space.

They propose to jack-up the house and dig space for a full block basement.

Mr. Burriss stated that GPC needs to approve the aboveground blocks.

MR.LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR BASEMENT SO THAT CONSTRUCTION

2

GPC Minutes May 22,2000

CAN BEGIN BUT FINAL APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON GPC'S APPROVING THE BLOCK

THAT WILL SHOW.MR.BURRISS SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bonny and Jim Fowler,214 South Cherry Streetfe -nce

The applicants wish to add a white 3' wood picket fence with caps in the rear ofthe yard for safety

for their children. Ms. Wimberger added that the fence would back up to the neighbor's fence on the north

side ofthe property. The alley running between South Mulberry Street and South Cherry Street borders the

south side ofthe property in question. The traffic on Cherry Street and the alley have become a concern for

the Fowlers. Mr. Lukco stated that the front of the fence should face out.

MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT APPLICATION FOR FENCE IS APPROVED AS SUBMITI'ED. MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Sign Code

There are a few grammatical changes to be made.

MR.LUKCO MOVED THAT THE GRANVILLE SIGN CODE 1999 REVISION BE GIVEN A FINAL

EDITING BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND RECOMMENDED THAT IT BE SUBMITTED TO

VILLAGE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Work Sessions:

Rich Cherry,223 South Main Street -Fence

Mr. Cherry explained that the brochure he received from Lowe's was quite different from the fence

available when he went to buy it. It has very wide spaces and is not appropriate,so he decided to make his

own fencing with dog- ears. He wanted to check this out with GPC.

Ms. Wimberger stated that this change needs to be advertised. The modified application is already

submitted. GPC generally thought the change was appropriate,and it will be considered at the next meeting.

Dan Rogers,210 East Maple Street- Garage

Mr.Salvage recused himselffrom this hearing}

Jim Cooper,Attorney,stated that he appeared with Mr. Rogers and Ned Roberts in March and

brought drawings that made an effort to reduce size of building and cutting the volume at the top. They tried

to make the structure look more like the 1997 plan but the appearance was changed and one-third ofthe space

was cut upstairs. At that session it seemed like we were working toward an agreeable session ( Mr. Cooper

said). The discussion focused on detail of doors and windows,etc.,and we are here to supplement these

details.

Ned Roberts said the lap siding will match the house and the trim detail will show finials and sliding

garage doors with glass and knee brace. Mr. Rogers and Mr. Roberts described windows.

Mr. Myers thought they should continue to move forward and that it looks better but will require a

new application. He likes the new double-hung windows in back and thinks the massing is sympathetic.

Mr.Burriss is a little uncomfortable with the appearance of the posts. They need to appear as though

they don't support the weight of the roof. Mr. Rogers agreed and said they would match those of the house

which are more substantial.

Mr. Lukco said that the application should include as much detail as possible so that there is no

misunderstanding as far as elevations, material,and design.

Mr. Rogers explained the gutters and downspouts.

3

GPC Minutes May 22,2000

Finding of Fact:

MR.SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE THE FINDING OF FACT FOR THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

PENDING REVS[IONS IN MINUTES. M {R.BURRISS RECUSED HIMSELF).

MR.SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A-E ON THE AGENDA ARE

CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF THE CODE NOTED IN THE

VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO AND AS RECORDED THIS EVENING.MR.WILKENFELD

SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next meeting:Monday,June 12 and June 26

Adjourned: 9:00 p.m.

GPC Minutes 5/8/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 8,2000

Minutes

Members Present: Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers, Members Richard Salvage Absent: Jack Burriss,Barbara Lucien Carl Wilkenfeld

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Mary E. Bline,Don Contini,Joy V. Carlson,Robert Seith,Jean Hoyt, Candi Moore,Steve Mershon,Christian Robertson,Don Stevens,Bill Acllin,Roger McClain,Lisa Minklei

Citizens'Comments: None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak

Minutes: Because of late arrival ofminutes,approval will wait until next meeting

New Business:

DRAFT

Andrew andJoy Carlson,547WelshHills RoadD -eck

The Carlsons wish to 1( )add a deck,enclosing front porch and entrance and removing walkway. 2 ( )A threes-eason breezeway will be turned into a playroom,and front door access will be here. 3( )A brick walkway and landing will replace sidewalk from driveway. 4 ( )Replace back door with a sliding glass door. 6 ()Add a window. Since the project is in the TCOD,it needs GPC consideration.

Ms. Carlson added that new Pella windows will be similar but will not match

existing the four styles ofwindows ofhouse.

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

LUKCO SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James Davis and Lisa Minklei, 127 South Main Street -Shed andremodeling

The applicants wish to (1)enclose their screen porch and move front door to the

breezeway;2 ()add an 8'x12' gable shed in the rear next to the Life Style Museum;3 ()

change the front walkway to brick and add brick steps and a railing;4 ()change the

northwest window to a doubleh-ung window: 5()res-ide house with white vinyl siding;6 () new gutters;7 ()windows will be reb-ound.

A unanimous buffer will help hide shed from museum and will probably not be

very visible from the street. BZBA willlook at the side yard setback.

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

LUKCO SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

First Presbyterian Church - Modification ofAlley Width # 9709OM

Christian Robertson,Contractor,explained that there is an error in the plans for the

First Presbyterian Church project. The church door on the west side ofthe building next to

the alley required another foot for clearance. He feels the 15' width would lend itselfto the

integrity of the road and would be more attractive and described for GPC members the

GPC,May 8,2000,

exact location ofthe doorway. The 15' 11"to 15'4"original road 15'w, hich is now constructed to was noticed and measured by one ofthe adjacent neighbors who had concerns about parking. Ultimately this construction error was due to an error on the drawing interpretation. The vestibule coming offofthe west side building was constructed. The

open doors would only give around 1' ifthe alley was 16:C u(rrently 2'9")A.nother issue with parking vehicles there is that even at 16'e,mergency vehicles ride the saddle ofthe sidewalk on the west side ofthe structure. Also,making the alley 16' next to the

condensers would cut into the screening vegetation and would disturb the vegetation. If alley were to be modified as originally proposed in the plans, it would ultimately result in a 12"longitudinal patch. The east side would be cut and would not lend itself to the integrity ofthe road.

Bill Acklin has attempted to meet with neighbors. Parking is a main issue and the Church has made the church lot available to neighbors. The best solution would be to prohibit parking in the alley because it represents a safety hazard with the doorway at the vestibule.

Bob Seith, neighbor,thinks there is not a problem with the width ofthe alley except

as it affects the three parking spaces that used to be there. In that constricted part from

Broadway back to almost his house,it is narrow and tight. Parking always is prohibited

beyond the third space because of where the cut began to make a swing around the old

locust place.

Mr. Lukeo asked about their concern. Mr. Seith said that they're concerned about

parking in so far as it restricts three spaces that have historically and frequently been used.

The UPS truck no longer comes down his house until he's talked to them. The three spaces

are from Broadway ( points on plans)going north. Fire trucks have driven the alley

previously and could do it.

Mr. Meyers asked for clarifications of task. Modification of application approval is

needed. A major or minor modification must be determined first.

Mr. Salvage is concerned about the loss of spaces from construction of new

addition,but some after.

Mr. Lukco had assumed this was a one-way street that went back out to Main

Street. The question was clarified by Bill Acklin who confirmed that the alley does connect

to Main Street along the north side ofthe religious education building. Mr. Acklin said

some spaces on Main were picked up where alley used to come out.

Mr. Meyers is concerned about parking. The 16' is easier to rationalize than

parallel parking. But he is really concerned about the safety ofthe Church and ifthe fire

trucks are getting through. Either way,trucks will get through since there is concrete on

either side ofthe alley in case of emergency.

Mr. Salvage is satisfied ifthe curb could be adjusted along where three spaces are

to be. New curb is installed all the way from Broadway to parking lot.

Mr. Lukco says it makes sense to go in two feet where the spaces are. Mr. Meyers

is concerned about how it would look to have a bend in it. Conversation ensued about

keeping 15' road with three spaces since neighbors are primarily concerned about parking

and not delivery trucks. A car can go through a 9' lane.

Mr. Meyers asked Mr. Seith if he is reasonably satisfied with three parking spaces

are added to the 15' and the alley is continued to the service house at a 9' travel lane?Mr.

Seith thought this shouldn't be a problem. There used to be a No Parking sign at the end of

1 4

2

GPC, May 8, 2000,

the spaces and the curb disappeared. Therefore,what have is an improvement and the

handicap entrance which ought not to be affected by the current issue. Just bring back in to

16'which is enough for three spaces and put a No Parking sign beyond that point ( sic).

Meyers asked if all present were satisfied if the alley is approved as is with three

spaces and if that continues to work?

Robertson asked ifthat meant it had to be expanded at front?No. Okay.

Salvage wants spaces clearly marked with No Parking sign.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION BE

CONSIDERED MINOR. MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED

MR„.SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED WITH THE

UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE THREE

PARKING SPACES IMMEDIATELY OFF WEST BROADWAY JUST PAST THE

SIDEWALK AND AT THE END OF THE THREE SPACES THERE IS TO BE A"NO

PARKING' SIGN. MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

With regard to the No Parking sign, it is a Village issue.

Steve Mershon and Candi Moore, 411 and 417 EastCollegeS -hared Driveway revisited

Ms. Wimberger reported that legal counsel determined that a 10' shared driveway

on College Street was appropriate. BZBA also approved ( contingent upon GPC approval)

a shared driveway for the other two lots the applicants own.

Bob Kent,from Granville Inn, felt that following the long school board discussion

which resulted in their having to reduce the parking spaces allow-ed,the shared alleyway

for the three lots should remain. Parking is scarce and the Inn suffers from lack of spaces.

Don Contini also felt, as he reported in his letter,the alleyway behind the lots

should remain,as GPC originally approved it. He felt Commission members should not

have changed their minds, but Mr. Lukco stated that the school board did not have any idea

of how much traffic their parking lot would generate. Ifthere is to be only one house built,

the driveway would be relocated. He likes the plans for the applicants' house even if it

means one or two parking spaces are lost.

Mr. Salvage agrees but thinks we are losing only one-half a space. He would

expect the house to be built and as a condition of approval there should be public record

made ofthe joint access between the two lots. This should not be done until they break

ground ( begin construction)

Mr. Myers is also sympathetic about parking for the two inns, but doesn't believe

this will hurt business very much. A shared drive is better than a 20' alleyway and he

wants to be assured the shared driveway is 10' so as not to lose any more parking spaces

than necessary.

Mr. Myers asked who is going to clean up the tree lawn and replace street trees?

Ms. Wimberger said it probably would not be done until the other two lots are built- upon.

re

GPC,May 8,2000,

The requirement Granger was. was not recorded that College Street improvement was included when

MEMBERS TABLED THIS DECISION UNTIL THE NEWHOUSE IS DECIDED UPON.

Steve Mershon and Candi Moore, 405 East College StreetN -ew Holise

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION 00057 OFF THE TABLE.

MRJ. LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

The applicants wish to build a new home with garage to be accessed from Granger Street. BZBA did approve variances for height,but GPC needs to look at this also to determine whether it is in the best interest of the community.

Mr.Mershon described the house plans and reported on a very minor change in the plans and said the tree lawn will be reestablished along College Street and new trees planted. Mr. Myers thought the Village would take care ofthe curb but the applicant must replace sidewalk and add 5-6 trees. Mr. Mershon said one street tree will have to be moved around the corner in order to build the driveway.

Ms. Wimberger said the College Street curbs should be placed on Village Council agenda.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE

FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1)CONCRETE SIDEWALK WILL BE ESTABLISHED

ALONG ALL THREE LOTS ON COLLEGE STREET TO MRS. HANNAHS' HOUSE;

2)THE CONCRETE AND ASPHALT BETWEEN SIDEWALK AND CURB WILL BE

REMOVED AND TREE LAWN ESTABLISHED;3 ()MINIMUM OF 4 TREES BE

PLACED IN THAT TREE LAWN,212'/DIAMETER OF A SPECIES AND LOCATION

TO BE APPROVED BY TREE AND LANDSCAPE COMMISSION. MR. LUKCO

SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE

APPROVED APPLICATION 99032 BE CONSIDERED MINOR. MR. LUKCO

SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MODIFICATION SUBJECT TO THE

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE APPROVAL SHALL BE THE DATE OF GROUNDBREAKING

ON THE HOUSE JUST APPROVED UNDER # 00057 AND THAT THE

JOINT ACCESS EASEMENT BE RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER

WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER BREAKING GROUND ( BEGINNING CONSTRUCTIONO

AT 405 EAST COLLEGE. THE JOINT ACCESS EASEMENT IS TO BE SUBMITTED

TO THE VILLAGE (WITH DRAWING AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR

APPROVAL BEFORE RECORDING

WorkSession:Mary E.Bline,Greystone Coiintry Hotise, 128 S.MainC -hange of Use

4

GPC,May 8,2000,

Ms. Bline wishes to expand her store's office and showrooni into the first floor the of house. This would not require any more parking because sales would be over the

Internet. GPC does not see any problem with this change.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MERSHON/ MOORE HOUSE AS

DISCUSSED TONIGHT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE AS LISTED IN THE

PLANNER'S MEMO AND RECORDED ON THE FINDING OF FACT WITH

CONDITIONS AT THE MEETING.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT WITH THE MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LOT SPLIT THE FINDING IS CONSISTENT WITH

RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF THE CODE WITH CONDITIONS

AS NOTED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO AND AS RECORDED THIS

EVENING.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT APPLICATIONS

A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS ARE CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT

SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS SPECIFIED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO.

MR. LUKCO SECONDED ALL MOTIONS,AND THEY WERE UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Next meeting: Thursday,May 25

Adjourned: 9.35 p.m.

GPC Minutes 4/24/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 24,2000

Minutes

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

Chair

Members Absent:Bernie Lukco

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Candi Moore,Steve Mershon,Bob Karaffa,Rob Montgomery,Vanessa Taphouse Fuson, Joe

Sinsabaugh,Perry Watson

Citizens'Comments: None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of April 10,2000:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED;MR.BURRISS SECONDED,AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

RobertC &hristine Montgomery,452 West Broadway A- ir Conditioner

Ms. Wimberger stated that the applicants wish to locate the AC unit on the side, which will require a

variance,as it is to be 4'from west property line. The house is in the Heritage Overlay District,100'from the

ROW. Mr. Montgomery added that it is 29"tall x 242!/"a,nd will sit on a platform 1' from the house. There

will be shrubbery around the unit and will sit in an ivy bed. He cannot put it behind the house because it's a

small area right below the dining room window.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION PROVIDING THAT BZBA APPROVES THE

VARIANCE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Tim Tyler,233 South Pearl Street - Air Conditioner and poured concrete

Ms. Wimberger noted that the applicant may modify the application later to add a picket fence. Mr.

Montgomery said there is a lot of space for the unit on the north side,and landscaping will be added later. The

unit will sit in an alcove and will not be visible from the street.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS: (1)THAT THE VILLAGE

PLANNER EXAMINE THE EXACT LOCATIONFOR AC AND (2)THAT IT BE SUFFICIENTLY

SCREENED FROM PEARL STREET. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Members discussed the fence which will be applied for later. It will go around the property. Mr. Salvage thinks

a modification can be brought in with photos or drawings showing the pickets and gate. Mr. Montgomery said

he wanted vinyl, but GPC discouraged him from this idea.

Mr. Montgomery added.that the 10'x30' poured concrete floor is part ofthe application

MR. SALVAGE AMENDED HIS MOTION TO ADD THE POURED CONCRETE FLOOR,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

GPC Minutes,April 24,2000, 2

Bob and Tracee Karajfa,311 NorthPearlStreet S-hed and Retaining Wall

Ms.Wimberger saidthe 8'x8'storage shed will be 4'from property line. The stone 3Vz'retainingwall fof

parking space will be 1' from property line,and BZBA will hearthe variances on Thursday.

Mr.Karaffa added thatthe shed will rest on a concrete pad and be made ofrough- cutwood.

MR.SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATIONWITH CONDITIONS:1 ()THAT THE COLOR OF

THE SHED BE APPROVED BY VILLAGE PLANNER AND ( 2)PENDING APPROVAL OF BZBA. MR.

BURR-ISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ann & Perry Watson,127 W.Maple Street -Remodel roofand change siding

Ms.Wimberger said they want to change the shed roofinto a hip roofstyle.They will change existing siding

to.matchthat onthe new addition and change shingles on bay window. Mr.Watson explained thatthe project

will fit in with the architecture ofthe rest ofthe street. They will use dimensional slate gray shingles to match

those on the back ofthe house.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SHINGLES ON

REVISED ROOF WILL MATCH STYLE OF THOSE ON THE ADDITION. MR.BURRISS SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Michael FusonV a&nessa Taphouse Fuson,103 ShepardsonCourt p-orch,etc. 2-o D

Ms.Wimberger said the application is in the HeritsgrObae-y* ct,within 100'ofthe ROW. They wish

to remodel porches,convert part ofthe garage into a porch,and also to rebuild porches and add balustrades.

Garage siding and trim will be replaced and match wood siding and trim on house.

Ms. Fuson said they will remove vinyl siding from garage and have it match the rest ofthe house. Both

porches will be rebuilt and will be screened.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED. MR.BURRISS SECONDED,

AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Sharon Sinsabaugh,329 West Elm Street - Roof

The applicant said the roof is in poor condition,and he would like to replace it with asphalt dimensional

shingles,which will look more authentic. It needs new gutters and they are thinking about copper material. The

proposed copper on the cupola cannot be seen from the street. The roofover the sunroom will continue to be

standing seam,dark gray and will not be changed.

Mr. Salvage summarized that there will be copper on cupola,dimensional on the rest ofthe roof.Sunroom will

be painted seam.

MR.WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR ROOFING BE APPROVED AS

SUBMITTED,WITH THE OPTION OF USING COPPER ON FLAT SURFACE AND COPPER FOR

DOWNSPOUTS. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

StevenMershonC &andada Moore,405 East College Street

Mr. Burriss recused himself from consideration of this application}

Ms. Wimberger said this is for a new single-family dwelling. She would advise the group not to take final

action yet,there is a copy ofa letter from legal counsel to be considered. She thinks the question ofthe

easement has been answered, but questions remain. This is for discussion and tabling and possible modification

to the lot split.

Mr. Mershon said he received Attorney Erhard's letter this afternoon but he does not know quite whether he is

C

GPC Minutes,April 24,2000, 3

being an advocate or making ajudicial decision. Mr. Erhard accessed. This says an easement is the only way lots can be was a surprise to applicants,but they disagree with Mr. Erhard in saying there is no access on College Street. The School Board gave three deeds for three lots.

Mr. Salvage said GPC favored the easement. He had recommended studying the ad for the real estate auction

at which the property was sold. We did not require the school to sell as three lots. If there were only two lots, there would be no need for shared access. Mr. Myers said that consensus was for two lots but the School Board wanted three.

Mr. Wilkenfeld said a total of two lots with shared access was preferred because the lots were so small that driveways would cause traffic problems. This would make it easier to meet code requirements.

Mr. Mershon said that every house in the area is on a small lot and these three are consistent or even wider. He explained the location of the driveway was to make traffic smoother on Granger Street.and thinks he could plan

shared access for his other two lots. He does not know what they will do with the other two lots at this time,but

ifthere are to be two houses,there would be a shared driveway.

Mr. Myers summarized so far: 1( )The lot split with shared access was GPC's preference. 1( )In order to

change, a modification is needed to the lot split;there is no easement on the application. 3 ( )The general idea

was to eliminate curbcuts. 4( )We are going to have to follow legal counsel's advice. The next step is to go back

to Mr. Erhard and ask him to outline the steps to be taken

Mr. Salvage had talked to the school officials and they said there was supposed to be an easement. ( 1)These

two could share an access;2 ()they would want deed restrictions;3 ()there is a parking problem on Granger,and

parking should be allowed instead of striping; 4 ()they want to be sure the driveway makes sense. 5 ()Mr.

Salvage likes the house plans.

Ms. Lucier said the Village Council voted on the lot split with the understanding that there was an easement as

part of it. Mr. Myers said a subdivision without plat does not go to Village Council.

Mr. Mershon then described the plans for the two-story Queen Ann style house,and showed where changes to

the plans were made. Mr. Salvage said the School Board has no problem,but ifthe Village has other access

plans they want to know about it. Setbacks will not be a problem with the school

Members discussed the wide sidewalks still present and consensus agreed that the school should replace the

tree lawn and gutters, rather than the applicants.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION PENDING INFORMATION FROM LEGAL

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

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT ALL APPLICATIONS,A THROUGH F

UNDER NEW BUSINESS,ARE CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS LISTED

IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Next Meetings: May 8 (Ms. Lucier to be absent)and 22

Sign Code: May 9, 7:30 p.m.

Adjournment: 8:50 p.m.

GPC Minutes 4/10/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 10,2000

Minutes

DRAFT

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barbara Lucier,Bernie Lukco, Richard Salvage

Members Absent:Keith Myers,Chair,Carl Wilkenfeld,Vice Chair

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Betty Morrison,Marcia Gleaves, Beth Yaekle, Scott Hickey,Gary Coyle,Rich Cherry,Ray Paprocki,Monique Pinkerton

Citizens'Comments: None

Mr.Salvage chaired the meeting and swore in all those who planned to speak)

Minutes of March 27,2000:

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED;MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Marcia Gleaves,221 West Broadway -IFence

Ms. Wimberger stated that the applicant wishes to establish a garden area,and is applying for a 6'

stockade- type wood privacy fence with latticg atop,18"inside the driveway. There would be an arched arbor at the

curve which will have hold climbing planftd¢t!841 had some uncertainties as to design,and Mr. Lukco informed her GPC cannot approve something indefinite. Ms. Gleaves then said she wants lattice,shadowbox,metal arbor. Mr.

Luikco said the fence should be painted if it is to be treated material,but if it is cedar,that will not be necessary.

MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT APPLICATION # 00-032 FOR FENCE BE APPROVED WITH CONDITION

THAT 1( )FENCE BE 6'HIGH INCLUDING LATTICE ON TOP,2 ()MADE OF EITHER CEDAR

WHICH WILL WEATHER)OR TREATED MATERIAL (WHICH SHOULD BE STAINED OR

PAINTED).MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Antique Show, Betty Morrison -Signs

The group wishes temporary informational signs in the village,some of which are in public right of way. Ms. Morrison

stated that signs have been displayed in these locations for 20 years and that they have the necessary permissions..Ms.

Wimberger added that the only community service sign permitted is at the flagpole. Ms. Morrison said signs would be

put up at the entrances to the village about four days before the 4-day sale and removed promptly thereafter. Mr. Lukco

questioned the necessity ofthe sign at Bennett's G( oodyear)a,nd she said she could eliminate it. The benefit is for

Granville Academic Boosters.

MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AND THAT THE SIGNS BE PUT UP

WHEN THE APPLICANT FEELS IT'S APPROPRIATE. SIGNS MUST BE REMOVED WITHIN A DAY

AFTER THE SHOW CLOSES. MR. BURRISS-SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Granville Volunteer Fire Department, 133 North Prospect -Generator

The Fire Department wishes to add a generator for emergencies at the rear ofthe property,in a concrete area within a

fence. The property is owned by the village,and the Village Manager has expressed approval. Mr. Greg Coyle

GPC Minutes.April 10,2000 ,2

explained the dimensions of the unit,the color and appearance,and security features,and that by using natural gas,it

will be quiet.

MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A GENERATOR FOR THE GRANVILLE

VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

in and Rich Cherry,223 South Main Street -Fences

The application is for air conditioner and two fences: ( 1)privacy fence in back because it is a very small lot and (2)a

picket fence surrounding the front of the property. One area of the picket fence would be on village right ofway,and

ifthe village needed to service the property,any charges involved shall be the responsibility ofthe owner. ( 3) Since

they needed to replace the furnace,they wanted to add an air conditioner,and to conserve space,they chose the south

side. An existing chainlink fence would be removed. Flowers and landscaping would be added. Mr. Cherry heard

earlier this evening that a treated fence must be painted,and he asked ifhe could let it weather for a year before

painting. He was told that the project must be completed within two years. The Village Planner can approve the color

selection.

MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR FENCE BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:

1)PICKET FENCE IN FRONT AS SHOWN ON DIAGRAM WILL BE LESS THAN 42"2; )(STOCKADE

FENCE AROUND THE REST OF THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN WILL BE NO MORE THAN 6'HIGH;

3)TREATED MATERIALS MUST BE STAINED;4 ()COLORWILL BE APPROVED BY VILLAGE

PLANNER ( APPLICANT HAS TWO YEARS FROM DATE OF APPROVAL TO COMPLETE PROJECT);

5)PLACEMENT OF AIR CONDITIONER ON PLAN IS ALSO APPROVED. ( 6)BZBA MUJST GRANT

APPROVAL. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Scott Hickey,Village Baker,212 South Main Street -Signs

The application is for 2 signs: ( 1)33"x22"wall sign on the building and (2)a sandwich board with plexiglass at the

entrance to the complex inside the sidewalk in the right of way. Mr. Hickey described the signs: black lettering on

white background on stained wood. GPC members preferred that the two signs be consistent in color and design.

MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR SANDWICH BOARD AND SIGN FOR THE

BUILDING FOR THE VILLAGE BAKER BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: (1)NAME OF THE

VILLAGE BAKER SHALL BE SAME COLOR AND SAME FONT ON BOTH SIGNS;2 ()SANDWICH

BOARD SHALL ONLY BE PRESENT WHEN BUSINESS IS OPEN AND SHOULD BE REMOVED

EACH DAY. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

d Business:

onique Pinkerton,117 East Elm -Change of Use

MR. LUKCO MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Ms. Pinkerton described the desired change in use from business and professional offices to a specialty shop. On-site

parking for 6 cars is in front ofthe building. She said there would be few clients present at the same time because her

business is primarily arranged by appointments.

Scott Hickey added that he has never seen 6 cars parked there,but the spaces should be striped. Mr. Lukco added

GPC Minutes.April 10,2000 ,3

that they should be angled since it is hazardous for traffic on the corner and at the complex next door.

MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION TO CHANGE BUSINESS USE TO A

BEAUTY/ HOME/ HEALTH PRODUCTS BUSINESS BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: ( 1)

PARKING AREA BE PAINTED WITH STRIPES AND (2)ANGLED TOWARD SOUTH MAIN. MR.

BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

onique Pinkerton,117 East Elm -Signs

The applicant wishes to erect 2 wood signs: (1)new wall sign on Elm Street side and (2)hanging ground sign using

the existing post. Mr. Burriss would like to have graphics and colors more consistent for both signs.

MR.BURRISS MOVED THAT APPLICATION # 00-45 FOR SIGNAGE FOR THE

BEAUTY/ HOME/ HEALTH FACILITY BE APPROVED WITH CONDITION THAT THE HANGING

SIGN AND THE WALL SIGN BE OF CONSISTENT GRAPHICS AND COLOR. MR. LUKCO

SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:

MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT ALL APPLICATIONS ARE CONSISTENT

WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS LISTED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO. MR.

BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings: April 24 (Mr. Lukco will be absent)

Sign Code: ?W?ed?nesday,April 17,7:40 p.m. ?M?s?. Wimberger to confirm.

Adjournment: 8:40 p.m.

GPC Minutes 3/27/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 27,2000

Minutes

DRAFT

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barbara Lucier,Bernie LukcoJKBimM- yermsI*rr)R,ichard Salvage,Carl Wilkenfeld ( Vice Chair)

Members Absent:Keith Myers,Chair

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Elizabeth Maher,Steve Mershon and Candi Moore,McLain and Hoblick

Citizens'Comments: None

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

Minutes of March 13,2000:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED;MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Elizabeth and Philip Maher, 354 North Granger Street -Fence

Ms. Wimberger stated that the application is for a 6'wood privacy fence with two gates in the back yard.

There is a chainlink fence at the east property line next to the school. .The fence would be 4"x4"treated posts,

and fence boards would be scalloped on top. Ms. Maher added that the fence would be stained treated lumber.

Both neighbors have expressed approval for the plan

Mr. Lukco asked for details about the stain,stating that if it's cedar,it will weather to gray;otherwise it may

look unfinished. Mr. Salvage thinks that with treated lumber she should have a stain,and Ms. Maher agreed.

We need to know what the final color will be,Mr. Salvage said,and can leave it up to the Village Planner for

final approval of color.

MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED WITH

EXCEPTION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO EITHER PAINT OR STAIN IT AND THE

COLOR WILL BE APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER. SHE IS TO BRING IN A SAMPLE OF

THE CAP FOR THE PLANNER TO APPROVE..MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Monique Pinkerton,117 East Elm -Change ofUse

The applicant is not present,and members had concerns about safety and parking in this area. Mr.

Lukco suggested we recommend a parking/ sidewalk study be made for the adjoining businesses.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION UNTIL APPLICANT IS PRESENT;MR. LUKCO

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Work Session:

Steve Mershon and Candi Moore,405 East College Street - New Home

Mr. Burriss recused himself from this discussion.}

The applicants wish to build on one ofthe three lots they recently purchased from the Board of Education. The

plans are consistent with ordinances,and a variance might be required for the rear setback and height. The

1

j

GPC Minutes,March 27,2000,2

applicants also propose to remove the shared driveway access offGranger Street that was initially proposed

and approved by the school board for all three lots.

Mr.Mershon said the house will be late Victorian Queen Ann style,two stories,three bedrooms,with

driveway offGranger Street. Mr.Mci«ain added some information about materials.

Discussion arose aboutthe easement from Grangerfor all three houses,which was,as GPC recalled it,.part of

the decision on the lot split,which was arrived it after long and careful thought. Although members thought

the plans were attractive for the home,this situation needs to be resolved first.

Mark Zarbaugh has given approval to Roger McLain to access storm water to the storm sewer.

Mr.Wilkenfeld thought they could turn the three lots into two lots and give more room to each lot.

Mr.Lukco recommended that the applicants submit a formal application while we research this more serious

concern.

The window on the rear was under architectural discussion,and Mr.Buriss suggested an oval window with

louvers.

Later in the meeting there was further discussion about the easement,and Ms. Wimberger said the legal

description includes the easement but the School Board's record does not include the easement. Mr.Lukco

wants to review the minutes ando/r tape from the discussions because he feels something has been changed in

the process. Mr. Salvage wanted to look at the ad for the auction for it included the easement.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT APPLICATION B UNDER NEW

BUSINESSM ( aherI)S CONSISTENTWITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS LISTED IN

THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO. MR.LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Next Meetings: April 10 ( Mr. Wilkenfeld and Mr. Burriss absent)and April 24

Sign Code: Wednesday,April 5, 7:40 p.m.

Adjournment: 8:40 p.m.

GPC Minutes 3/13/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 13,2000

Minutes

DRAFT

Members Present:Jack Burriss, Barbara Lucier,Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers C( hairR),ichard Salvage

Members Absent:Carl Wilkenfeld

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present:Scott Rawden S(entinel)S,cott Harmon,JeffFrahn,Gary Yaekle,Dan Rogers,Barbara

Franks,Pat Nugent,Deb Hibler,James R. Cooper,Esq.,Tod Darfus,Ned Roberts,Ashlin Caravana

Citizens'Comments: It was noted that no recommendations have yet been received from the Law Director

regarding procedure of hearings.

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak)

Minutes of February 28,2000:

Page 3: Line 7,ChangeA "BSTENTIONt"o NAE VOTE.

Page 3,at end ofFinding ofFact,changeU "NANIMOUSLYt"o APPROVED WITH ONE ABSTENTION

MR.WILKENFELD).

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED;MR.BURRISS SECONDED,AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

JeffFrahn,American Family Insurance,119 Rear East Elm Street -Sign

Ms. Wimberger introduced the application,stating the proposal is for a red,white,and blue sign made

of plastic film to be installed in the window for a new business. The sign is already in place,and the applicant

is seeking no sign on South Main or Elm Streets.

MR.LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Tod Darfus, 233 East Broadway -Fences

Two fences are proposed: 1( )3'4-'black iron fence similar to what was there previously,which wraps

around the front yard,and ( 2)6'x55' wooden privacy fence in the rear. There would be a gate at the east side

of the house and a double gate at the driveway entrance on Broadway and a gate to the front walk to the front

door.

Mr. Darfus showed pictures ofthe fence and showed exact locations. There will be landscaping added.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 00-021 FOR FENCING SUBJECT TO THE

METAL ALONG FRONT BEING A PRE-FINISHED BLACK COLOR AND THE FENCE ACROSS THE

BACK,A CREAM COLOR TO BE APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. BURRISS

SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ashlin Caravana, 209 East Elm Sttreet -Temporary Fence

The applicant wishes to erect a temporary fence to keep her child inside while he is learning the boundaries.

The actual fence was exhibited.a wire fence coated with green,to be installed along the side property line,the

only area not already enclosed. Neighbors are agreeable. Landscaping will eventually replace the fence

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR FENCE TO BE IN PLACE FOR AN 18-

MONTH PERIOD. MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

P =

GPC Minutes,March 13, 2000 2

Deborah Hibler,318 East College Street -Garage,fence,pool,demolition

Ms.Wimberger said there are two applications: 1( ) 2#3 is for a new twoc-ar garage with storageo/fficep/ool

house and deck. Roof line will match existing house. The pool will be enclosed with a 6'wood fence and

gate stained to match house; 2 () 2 4#is for demolition of onec-ar garage. The neighbors have no objections to

the project. Ms.Hibler will need setback variances from BZBA. The current garage does not match

architecturally and its placement in middle of yard uses up to much greenspace.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 23 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF TWOCAR

GARAGE,FENCE,AND POOL SUBJECT TO (1)BZBA APPROVAL OF SETBACKS AND (2)THE

FENCE BEING PAINTED CREAM COLOR AS IN THE SAMPLE PRESENTED TONIGHT. MR.

BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE PERMIT # 24 FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE.

MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Myers noted that this was an excellently prepared application.

Work Session:

Dan Rogers,210 East Maple Street

Mr. Rogers proposes to change the roofline as part of a new application to be forthcoming

Mr. Salvage recused himself froml this discussion.

Jim Cooper,Counsel,said that he does not have the benefit of attending previous sessions and the

situation was presented,as it exists now. He and Mr. Rogers and Ned Roberts worked together to come up

with a plan closely resembling the 1997 approved application This modified plan would have a pitched roof

and a saltbox design. There was an approval in 1997 for a 1' side and rear setback,and he hoped the survey

being done is within that range. The square footage would remain the same,but volume has been reduced.

Ned Roberts added that they took the pitch of the roof and used it as a point to take it back the same as

in the front. The garage has 10'ceilings and 16'floor truss and they did not want to change that. This plan

stops the massing and from the side would look like a saltbox. Exterior materials is to be the same as the front

of the house and wood lap siding on all four sides. The notch is a recessed door. There would be a post in the

corner to match the one on the front porch and two doors,one to enter and one to go upstairs. Single roofing to

match house. The horizontal window in the rear will be shorter and narrower,like an awning window and

will match windows at back of house. Windows would be double hung. Windows are shows with divisers,

but Mr. Rogers said it would be simpler not to have dividers.

Mr. Burriss advised applicant that very detailed drawings and elevations will be required. Mr. Lukco

said the applicants are trying to satisfy us,and he cannot envision whether the new plan would add or detract,

but he wants it to look like original application.

Mr. Myers thought that changing the roofline would cut down the massing and is a significant

improvement,but he thinks the window in the rear should be rectangular and vertical.

Mr. Burriss asked about replication of Victorian details. One reasont why the original plan worked

well was that-the form was the same as existing house. In a saltbox shape,the hip roof is gone,more

consistent with original approval,and the massing is less. A saltbox form,architecturally speaking,would

have been appropriate for a carriage house. It most likely would be a board and batten rather than the high

detail ofthe house. A saltbox shape is different from the Victorian detail that would have been put on. From

the drawings it is not clear whether any of the details are applied on that building. Mr. Rogers stated he wants

to come as close as he can with the cornices. Mounting around windows would probably work,and he plans

to put on corner boards, and sliding barn doors .He wants it to look good Ned Roberts said board and batten

could be done with plywood.

2

04

GPC Minutes,March 13, 2000 3

Barbara Franks thought what is planned would not be as nice as what was built. One- third of her

upstairs space is being eliminated. No neighbors are against the current building. Mr. Cooper said there are

trade- offs in the Architectural Review sections. He wondered whether drawings could be submitted for GPC to

look at before the application is made.

Mr.Myers thought the suggestions presented tonight were good. Another work session should be

planned.

Even thought the 1' setback had earlier been approved by BZBA,this would be a new application and

would require a new variance.

Scott Harmon,surveyor,said his work is copyrighted and should not be used for mortgage surveys or

architectural renderings. He is upset that people get approval for fences,etc.,when a banking survey is used

and the survey is inaccurate. Mr. Harmon would like to see some guidelines put into place,and Mr. Myers

suggested he talk with Village Council.

Finding of Fact:

Mr. Myers said the group found the sign application for Mr. Frahn fits within the existing code,

1161. 05. Italso fits within 1189 ofthe Granville code.

Ther iron fence and privacy fence sought by Mr. Darfus fit all code requirements. His application is

approved with conditions noted in the approval.

The temporary fence for Ms. Caravana is approved for an 18-month period from final date of

approval.

The Hibler application meets all conditions.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE APPLICATIONS UNDER NEW

BUSINESS ( Frahn,Darfus, Caravana,Hibler)ARE CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE

CODE AS LISTED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO. MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings: March 27 and April 10

Adjournment: 8:50 p.m.

GPC Minutes 2/28/2000

GRANVL[LE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 28,2000

Minutes

DRAFT

Members Present:Jack Burriss, Barbara Lucier,Bernie Lukco,KeithMyers C( hair), Richard Salvage,Cart

Wilkenfeld

Members Absent:

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present:Scott RawdenS (entineD,BrendaMix,Robert Kent,Robert O'Neill,Larry Parr,Steve

Breach,RobertB.Cahill,Rose Wingert,M Clayton,Lisa McKivergin,Curt Shonk,LauraJoseph,Constance

Barsky,Phil Claggett,Judy Duncan,GinnaE &d Meurer,CarolynJ a&mes McFarland,Art Proffitt,

Citizens'Comments:It was noted that no recommendations have yet been received from the Law Director

regarding procedure of hearings.

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

Minutes of February 14,2000:

Page 2: Add to corrections ofMinutes ofJanuary 24:at top ofpage: Mr.Hurst agreed to study the

matter and make recommendations ofalternative wavs to document the GPC proceedings. GPC could make

a recommendation to VC to adogt any changes needed.

MR.LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR.BURRISS

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

PhilipM.Claggett, 130 S.MulberrySt.L a(mneck home)

Ms. Wimberger introduced the application,stating the proposal is for remodeling the front porch,

replacing existing columns,adding V2 posts and rail.

Mr. Claggett said the porch foundation will be concrete block,and the fascia will remain.The

woodan railing and posts will be similar to a house on North Pearl. They intend to close off one entrance.

Mr.Myers added that Woody Hayes once lived here.

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

SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

The Colony at Bryn Du -Final Plat

The final plat is presented tonight,and the next step will be for V.C.to approve changes in

covenants. The final plat contains a map ofthe property and the layout.

Bob Kent,President ofGranville GolfCourse introduced the others who have been involved in the

application.

Mr.Myers reminded the group of some concerns left over from the last meeting:

0 Detention basin in front

0 Width of road entering the development

0 Landscaping plan

0 Additional drawings of elevations

0 Signage

Larry Parr explained that the streetscape will be a tree-lined boulevard,and all streets will have

street trees at 35'.There will be Nonvay spruce and other heavy landscaping at the entrance. Trees will be

moved from their current location.

There will be a project sign,which will require a separate application.Signage will be an understated

sign on Newark-Granville Road,a post with a sign hanging from it.

GPC Minutes,February 28,2000

Doug Mill described how they will plan the detention basin,with trees and fencing.

Regarding elevations,the three designs will have cedar siding,stone,and the same roof. Two

houses will share a common driveway.No garage doors will face Newark-Granville Road.

Lisa McKivergin had some concerns and read a statement to the group,saying the covenants were

changed to 1( )make total square footage 1,000'less;2 ()place driveways nearer than 5'to a perimeter

boundary3; ()reduce roads to 26'4; )(shared driveways. People who purchased lots believing that all houses

would have 2500 sq.ft.have legal rights,Ms.McKivergin believes,to enforce those protective covenants and

setback requirements. In addition,the project is in the TCOD,which requires 100'setback.Sho takes issue

also with the style of architecture to be used.

Ginna Meurer,who lives on Newark- Granville Road moved here because she liked the atmosphere

of the town and does not want to change it. Greenspace should be cherished.

Laura Joseph seconded her comments,saying developments can fit better in different settings.

Constance Barsky is in favor of preserving greenspace and said she worked long and hard on the

Comprehensive Plan Review Committee to come up with the setback is being eaten away with variances.

Here is the last opportunity to require the 100'setback. Jim McFarland moved here for the simplicity ofthe

village and fears this project will make for a less attractive community and higher traffic. Greenspace is

much preferable to high-density homes,and this could not have been conceived by the Comprehensive Plan

Committee. Brenda Mix does not see why the greenspace should be in the central corridor instead ofhaving

a straight road. Larry Parr said there are 37 acres in the project and 21.6 acres of greenspace.

Bob Kent said they are not asking for variances,and they are 100'from the right of way.

The public comments were closed by the Chair.

Mr. Wilkenfeld feels passionately concerned about the project,asking whether the developers have

met with current residents t(he answer was Yes. They presented drawings and agreed to move the plans

closer to the easO He asked whether the project was for empty nesters,but one cannot control who buys a

house. He said these are not cluster homes;they are ranch homes,and Larry Parr agreed,but there is space in

the loft. Robert 0 'Neill worked hard to meet desires of the market and people who expressed their interest to

him in such a project Mr. Wilkenfeld referred to the Comprehensive Plan which stresses preserving the

sceric corridor;and in rural areas setbacks should be 400' or 250'from existing roads. H (e was told there is

145' from center line to the house.)The entrance road has been expanded too much. We are turning every

inch of greenspace into a money-making project. He will vote against the application because of the

Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Salvage stated that the plan approved in 1994 was a good idea and addresses a need for the

village for smaller,cluster-type houses. Restrictions and covenants only apply to recorded plats and get

fixed each time a house is built. He believes this plan adheres with 1994 intentions. No one from Bryn Du

has spoken up tonight,but their previous concern was about access road. and he thinks the Danner Company

is well recognized. He feels that with 60 per cent greenspace,this preserves the character of the entrance to

the community

Mr. Lukco feels that GPC concerns have been addressed and that it is a good and needed project

with well-designed. He commends the applicants for being cooperative through this process.

Mr. Myers summed up a couple of concerns

0 Village Council considers covenants, not GPC

0 Our mission is to interpret the zoning code. A development plan is to be approved by V.C. and GPC.

Section 1104a.( )6()says approval is binding and that minor modifications may be made. This plan is

consistent with the original approved plan and modifications seem an improvement

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT FOR THE

COLONY AT BRYN DU WITH CONDITIONS THAT:

0 A MODIFICATION IN THE DETENTION BASIN TO BE MOVED BACK ON NEWARKGRANVILLE

ROAD TO ALLOW MORE SPACE FOR LANDSCAPING BETWEEN THE PATH

2

GPC Minutes,February 28,2000

AND THE BASIN.

0 THE STREET ENTRANCE WIDTH IS REDUCED TO 26'WITH A WIDER ENTRANCE

RADIUS

0 COMPLIANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPING PLAN PRESENTED TONIGHT

0 ALL TREES WILL BE MINIMUM OF 2 92'DIAMETER TRUNKS

MR.LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY ( WITH ONE AO V

ABSTEN:HeN ( MR. WILKENFELD)

Finding of Fact:

MR.SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE CLAGGE'IT APPLICATION

00-014)IS CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS LISTED IN THE

VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO. MR.LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

MR.SALVAGE ALSO MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT WITH CONDITIONS THE

APPLICATION FOR THE COLONY AT BRYN DU IS CONSISTENT WITH PUD SECTION OF THE

CODE ( 1171.06)AND THAT ANY MODIFICATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FINAL PLAT ARE

MINOR CHANGES FROM THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 1994. THE COMMISSION

FURTHER FINDS THAT THE APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OTHER RELEVANT

SECTIONS AS STATED IN THE PLANNER'S NEMORANDUM.11»L·I.C#O SECONDED AND IT

WAS UNANEMOUS6AP¥PROVED. -t«8-v-«Af>h-·-6

Next Meetings: March 13 ( Keith and Carl will be absent)and March 27 (Betty will be absent)

Sign Code: March 6

Adjournment: 9:05 p.m.

GPC Minutes 2/14/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 14,2000

Minutes

DRAFT

RMiechmabrders Present:Jack Burtiss, Barbara Lucier,Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers C( hair), Salvage,Carl Wilkenfeld

Members Absent:

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present:Scott Rawden SentineD,Jean Hoyt,Brenda Mix,Robert Kent,Robert O'Neill,Larry Parr,Dwayne Goodwin,Mike Flood,JeffKurzawa,John Hasselbach,Walter Palawsky

Citizens'Comments: none

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak)

Minutes of January 24,2000:

Page2: In the motion at bottom,changeD "ORMER"in Line 4 to GABLE and change"GABLE"at end of sentence to SIDES.

Page 3, Add before the motion: The applicant was asked whether she would be agreeable to tabling the application and she answered Yes.

Page 4,First line under Fackler: r e"ceived a call from a representative of Mr. Fackler."

Page 5,delete Paragraph B.

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

BURRIS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CAAA 61 -

Old Busihesk: --

Jean Hoyt, 117 Locust Place

Ms. Wimberger introduced the application, stating the proposal is for a 10'x22'

wood carport ofthe same materials as the existing front porch, extending the porch

overhang, and projecting 14' toward the street. The application was tabled at the last

meeting,pending receipt of new detail, and there is a new drawing in your packet.

Mr. Lukco stated that this is in the AROD,and he is uncertain that carports are

appropriate in front of the house,although he understands the applicant wants to protect the

car.

Mr. Burris thought there should be more posts both for safety and for aesthetics.

Ms.Hoyt stated there would be gutters and downspout on the outside column.

Mr. Salvage thinks this plan is more attractive than what is there now, and thinks

that any new columns should line up with the porch columns.

Mr. Myers and Ms. Lucier concurred with the idea ofmore columns, and Ms. Hoyt

agreed there should be another column on the side and maybe two columns at the side ofthe

house.

GPC Minutes,February 14,2000

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE

UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT WILL ADD COLUMNS TO

LINE UP WITH THE PORCH COLUMNS,MATCHING OTHER COLUMNS,

AND COLUMNS UP AGAINST THE HOUSE (FOUR COLUMNS).THERE

WILL BE GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT. MR. BURRISS SECONCED AND IT

WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE ABSTENTION ( MR.

WILKENFELD).

New Business:

Lee and Linda Davis,304 N.Pearl St. F-ence

The Davises want to install a wood fence and gate along north property line with a

small segment on the east line. They are requesting a brick or paver patio with a pergola

inside the fenced yard. The fence would be set inside the property line about a foot.

Mike Flood from Albyn's stated it is a small space and a small fence would provide

privacy,as opposed to plantings.

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

WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

The Callard Company,120 W.Broadway -Sign

Duane Goodwin,from DR Signs,explained that the proposed two-sided black and

white sign is just a name change and will replace the existing sign,using the same structure.

The logo and lettering in black,background in white. The logo will be centered at the top

ofthe sign. The owners will refurbish the sign in the spring.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 0008 AS

PRESENTED. MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Walter Palawsky,227 Sunrise St. F-ence

Mr. Palawsky is requesting a 4' x 103' green vinyl chainlink fence with 2 gates inside

the property line in the rear yard. The fence would be lower than the railing on the deck.

The fence is to confine the owner's dogs,and the reason for chainlink is economic. A

precedent has already been set by the fence at the school next door and another residence.

Mr. Lukco stated that GPC prefers that it not be chainlink,but he understands there

is a precedent. Ms. Lucier thought the applicant could plan a more attractive fence,

especially in front. Mr. Palawsky agreed that he could design a picket fence along the front.

Members agreed that Ms. Wimberger could approve the design for the picket fence

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 00-011 WITH THE

CONDITION (1)THAT THE 9-10'FACING SUNRISE ST. BE CHANGED TO

PICKET FENCING OF PROPER HEIGHT,TO BE APPROVED BY THE

VILLAGE PLANNER. THE RATIONALE IS THE PROXIMITY OF THE

2-

GPC Minutes,February 14,2000

CHAINLINK AT THE SCHOOL AND BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER

CHAINLINK FENCES NEARBY.MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

The Colony at Bryn Du -Final plat application

Ms. Wimberger said this is for final plat approval for the Colony at Bryn Du of the

development. The original development plans and the preliminary plat were approved by

Council with Ordinance 1 - 94. The covenants are to be approved by Village Council. They

will build it in two stages but approval will be for both at this time.

Mr. Kent showed a new drawing and Mr. Parr showed where modifications have

been made at the entrance and moving Lots 1 and 2 so that they face the main entrance.

They will plant spruces and firs, and landscape plan will be forthcoming. There is about 21

acres of green space.

Mr. Kurzawa,representing Bryn Du Woods homeowners,and John Hasselbach

asked whether they could table the application and find out if the city might be interested in

obtaining the area as green space. Mr. Myers said there is an application before us and we must act upon it.

Mr. Myers stated there is a technical problem with the application. The Sentinel

neglected to print the official notice and some people may not have been aware of the

application's being heard tonight. We could go ahead and discuss the application and find

out later whether the applicant wanted to table decision. it,lest there be a challenge to GPC's

Mr. Hasselbach stated the neighboring property owners did not want the connector road, and Mr. Kent said it would not be built in the first stage.

Mr. Lukco asked about proposed road names and preferred just one name. Mr. Parr considers the plan three separate streetst h(erefore three street names necessary).

With regard to the letter from Bird &Bull {2/7/00}, consulting Village Engineers,

members discussed the engineering concerns and were assured the details would be taken into consideration regarding storm drainage, etc.

Mr. Wilkenfeld's original concerns has been addressed: 1( )reorienting Lots 1 and 2; 2)move the whole project farther back away from the road;and ( 3)the connecting road.

No. 1 has been modified,and No. 2 cannot be done. Mr.Myers and Mr. Lukco feel there should be a connector road rather than an emergency road covered with grass. Mr. Myers said there should be more than one way in and out for safety reasons. Although the neighbors oppose it, it was part ofthe originally approved plat.

Mr. Myers would prefer no curbs and gutters and wants to hear the Village

3

GPC Minutes,February 14,2000

rEenqguiinreemeer'sntcso.mments on them. Mr. Kent has no preference,but the Village may have

Ms. Wimberger said for the record that the average building lot coverage is 202-3 per cent. Maximum permitted could be capped at 25 per cent. A standard must be noted since Section 1171,PUD,states that 15 per cent is the maximum. With a lot ofgreen space daeroduicnadte,dthis may not be a big issue to the Commission. Coverage can be more with green space.

Mr. Salvage stated 1( )that he appreciated Mr.O'Neill's providing the letter addressing the school situation and thinks the project will generate revenue for the schools. 2)The applicant is attempting to comply with the wishes ofthe GPC as expressed in the work sessions,and he compliments the applicant in acting to accommodate our wishes.

poles. Street lights will be like those on BrynDug-a-s lighting,with ornamental black

Mr. Myers inquired ofMr. Kent that understanding the unfortunate technical circumstances which led to the Law Director's recommendation for tabling,would he be willing to table the application,and he said yes. This would provide time for the engineers to examine the concerns expressed tonight.

The group wondered whether V.C. would be willing to have roads without curbs and gutters, Ms. Wimberger will ask Mark Zarbaugh,Service Director,to come to our next meeting and provide the village's input.

Mr. Salvage summarized the discussion thus far:

Reduce entrance to 26' s(ame width as interior streets ofthe Colony)and make the turning radius better.

Remove concrete flow channels for catch basins

Reduce retention basin on Newark-Granville Road

Landscape plan is required

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT, SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS GIVEN HIS

APPROVAL,WE TABLE THIS APPLICATION UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING WITH INSTRUCTIONS THAT THE PROPER ADVERTISING IS DONE. MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Review ofDiscussion with Rufus Hurst,Law Director

Mr. Lukco understands why we need to have rationalizations in our code and that

for our decision to stand up,it must be based on something specific in the code. The code,

GPC Minutes,February 14,2000

however,is to an applicantoiotnc.lear,organized,or well written,and that is a problem as we apply the code

Therefore,he recommends that 1( )the criteria be revised for GPC to use for evaluating applications. We can probably come up with 8-10 criteria that fall under similar categories. 2 ( )Rewrite the code with more structure, based on what GPC is supposed to do and submit it to V.C. Mr. Lukco originally thought ofprocess and thought we should hire somebody to work on revising the code for us and BZBA.

Mr.Myers said that Mr. Hurst wants us to justify our actions through these standards,so the problem is how it is written. One thing is the new SBD ordinance. New tAhlebman. y has Design Standards for all sections ofthe code and all applications must adhere to

Mr. Burriss added that we have been subjective and maybe we should be more objective. Mr. Myers thought the latitude in the code can be used to base judgments. GPC members have appreciated all the architectural advice Mr. Burriss has provided.

Mr. Lukco and Ms. Wimberger will meet to plan next steps.

Finding of Fact:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT,INCLUDING THE VILLAGE

PLANNER'S AGENDA AND TAPES OF PROCEEDINGS, FINDING OF FACT

FOR A,B,AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESSD (avis,Callard,Palawsky)AND A UNDER OLD BUSINESS ( Hoyt)AS FORMAL DECISION OF THE

COMMISSION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings: February 28 and March 13

Next Sign Code Meeting:Monday,March 6,7:30 p.m.

Adjournment: 9:20 p.m.

GPC 01/24/00

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 24,2000
Minutes
DRAFT
Members Present:Jack Burriss, Keith Myers C( hair)R,ichard Salvage,Bill Wernet Members Absent:Bernie Lukco,Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner, Barb Lucier ( Observer)
Visitors Present:Jean Hoyt, Steve Contini,Norman Ingle,Perry Layton, Rich Marshall
At 7 p.m. the group held a discussion with the Law Director on produ#rat N
matters. Mr. Hurst responded to a question asking whether the memo Ms. Wimberger
prepared for her agenda might be used as part of the official documents on file. Mr. Hurst
replied that would take care of the criteria under which you need to approve or deny an application. But his concern is not the specific language;ultimately, a record ofwhat you decide is being made that reflects the awareness ofthe criteria you are obliged to comply
with when considering an issue. The decision is based on the criteria and is in writing
adopted by the commission. That record protects the municipality. Until such time as the
Commission files its report,the appeal clock does not tick
Mr. Myers can't see us taking-on that added time-consuming logistical work.
Mr. Wernet said that ifwe deny something,we state the reasons or state that it is
not in the general welfare of the community. Mr. Hurst said,Y "es, all you need to say is
under which criteria you considered it You have to do this in every case,but there are a
number of streamlining forms you can use,and many times that is all you will need. The
reason for doing this,even for an approval, is that a neighbor may appeal your decision.
Your avenues of decision are (1)duly undertake all the considerations;2 ()consider;3 ()
write it up; 4()review Finding ofFact; 5()adopt Finding of Fact. You can hire a court
reporter ifyou wish. The Codified Ordinances require this. Itthe Ordinances need to be '
revised and if there is a reason why things should not be done that way,maybe they should
be changed. But your written decision needs to reflect a understanding ofthe criteria.
Mr. Myers asked whether a permit may be issued if we have a Finding of Fact in
writing. The problem,Mr. Hurst replied, is when a neighbor even with a simple approval,
wishes further review. Mr. Myers said there are a lot of things on the checklist,but we
still have to go into the code for more detail.
Mr. Salvage thought we could refer to the more relevant sections ofthe memo in
the Finding of Fact; if there are specific things,we should state that. He also stated that
sometimes we have decided to delay on the Finding of Fact and gain agreement on the
wording,but generally it can be done at the meeting. Mr. Myers said when there might be
a 3-2 vote, it would be difficult to agree on the wording. He asked whether tapes could be
used as permanent record,and Mr. Hurst said Granville's code requires written record. He
has no knowledge of this in other communities,but he has seen jurisdictions which say
that the recording ofthe Board is the official record. If a person requests a copy ofthe
tape,it can be done for a fee. Some communities have a court reporter for every word.
There are a number of ways to get out of the box.
Mr. Salvage thought this process might take longer than two weeks,and Ms.
Lucier said that many applicants would not be too distressed by a delay.
Mr. Wernet thought this might require additional staff.
GPC Minutes,January 24, 2000
Mr. Myers reminded the group that we need to treat everybody equally lfwe
can't agree on the wording,it could take a long time. He prefers to do it the way we do it
now. He does not want to be arbitrary.
Mr.Myers convened the regular meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Citizens'Comments: none
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.)
Minutes of January 10,2000:
Page 3: Add Mr. Salvage wanted Mr. Kent to provide some impact study on what
might happen to the schools.-- He also wanted a connector road to Glyn Tawel.even ifit
is a green connector.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR.
BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
Ann and Perry Watson,127 West Maple Street
Ms. Wimberger introduced the application,stating the applicant would like to
enclose an area on the first floor and add a bedroom over the entire rear area. A variance
on side yard setback will be considered by BZBA on Thursday.
Mr. Myers asked about windows in the gable and Mr. Watson said the house faces
the lumber yard and so from the windows on the back they wanted to see UP rather than
DOWN to gain sun and to not look into the lumber yard.
Mr. Cherry,the Architect,said that the shape of the room makes the high windows
nice and furniture placement easier. Mr. Burriss said there are few pedestrians there and
the window is centered under the gable and is consistent with windows on the other side.
He would like to have seen more detail. lt is important to have consistency with the
windows. He said there are no windows under the south gable,and Mr. Myers thought a
window would allow more light into the house and enhance the cathedral feature. Mr.
Watson thought a window there would work and wanted to ink it into the application.
Consensus of the group liked this improvement. Mr. Burriss asked about window
trim,and Mr. Cherry said it will match the rest of the house.
3/0
MR. SALVAGE MOVED,AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION,TO FIND THE
APPLICATION GENERALLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VILLAGE
CODES AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO ADD A WINDOW
IN THEMQBiN1*@R ON THE SOUTH SIDE CONSISTENT WITH THE
GABLES ON THE OTHERGBE*E, THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED
THAT TRIM AROUND THE WINDOWS WILL MATCH AS NEARLY AS
POSSIBLE THE OTHER WINDOWS. OUR APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO
2
GPC Minutes,January 24.2000
APPROVAL OF VARIANCES IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY BY BZBA. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND APPROVED
Jean R.Hoyt,117 Locust Place - Carport
Ms. Wimberger said the appiicant would like to add a carport to the front porch, extending the porch overhang. No variances are required.
Ms. Hoyt said the carport will be of similar or the same materials. From the street view it will be similar to what is there now. The addition will make the house more functional and provide some protection to the car.
Mr. Burriss asked about the tloor level ofthe porch being above the level ofthe driveway. He felt the carport should appear as an extension oithe porch and wouid like to see detailed drawings showing the relationship between the proposed posts to the
current ones. He thought the concrtte could be a little higher '1'he base of the columns should be on the same plane to create an illusion of extension of the p,orch,rather than having a step down on the porch floor. Mr. Burriss appreciated the good work Ms. Hoyt has put into this project so far. and we want to ensure the project supports these efforts.
Ms. Hoyt thought it would be difficult to have them on the same plane and explained how the carport would follow the line ofthe house with concrete piers close to the ground.
Mr.Myers added that drawings are a requirement for an application,and suggested she submit a drawine so the group can consider it at the next meeting.
r €67-2 7J -/f -7 4.--4 Y 1-r r<f P ->* MR„.SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PENDING RECEWT OF
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Old Business.
Stephen Contini.210 SunriseM -odification
Mr. Myers asked whether this modification is minor or major and MR. SALVAGE
MOVED THAT THIS IS A MINORMODIFICATION. MR..BURRISS SECONDELD,
AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1)The applicant is requesting a one-foot addition to the length. He stated that
the intent was to create more room. The 5"at the side of the houseth--ey made that flush
but it made more sense to overlap to make the wall straight across. The 2x4 on the inside
would cause a jog inside the room so they want to come in 5"on the house side.
2)The one foot on the back came about when he dug the footer and in their haste
to work with the wet concrete,they did not measure accurately.and came farther than he
intended with the rebar.
3)The drawings show the side wall without a window,but he wants to add
another window similar to what is on the house now to the south towards College Street.
Consensus of the group likes the idea of a window on the south.
3
GPC Minutes,January 24,2000
Mr. Burnss wanted to reemphasize the importance continuing the elegant trim on
the house,as discussed in the original application.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE, AS REFERENCED IN
OUR MEMO;THAT WE APPROVE OF THE ADDITION OF A WINDOW
ON THE COLLEGE STREET SIDE AND THAT IT BE CONSISTENT WITH
THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WINDOW ON THE BACK. MR„.BURRISS
SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
George Fackler,2326NewarkG-ranville Road
Mr. Salvage reported that he received a call from Mr. Fackler requesting that his
application be removed from the meeting agenda tonighfhnci tabled until a future time.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE TABLEDAT THE
REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT THIS EVENING. MR. BURRISS
SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Sign Code
Mr. Myers would prefer to have the full membership present when the sign code is
considered,but we will take comments alt this time.
Norm Ingle,from Pippin Hill, said he erected a sandwich board on the corner of
Broadway and Pearl,lacking sufficient room on North Prospect,but Ms. Wimberger said
he needs approval. He thinks sandwich boards are getting shabby and are a hodgepodge.
A standardized policy should be considered. He thought Rich Cherry,the architect,could
come up with a design. Mr. Salvage prefers variety to a standardized sign. He thought
Ms. Wimberger could walk the street and suggest to relevant owners that signs need to be
upgraded.
Mr. Burriss said that GBPA is sponsoring a Downtown Beautification Committee
and encouraged Mr. Ingle to attend their meeting tomorrow night to give input.
Mr. Ingle also suggested a joint directional sign on corners for businesses on side
streets. Mr. Salvage suggested that Mr. Ingle submit an application.
Village Office Building.m 141 East Broadway
Ms. Wimberger reminded the group that the original approval for the awning was
As long as Mr. Burriss approves."Now Mr. Burriss wants our agreement on the blue
color he selected with little yellow stripes. Consensus of the group approved of his color
selection..
Announcements:
4
GPC Minutes,January 24, 2000
A. Ms. Wimberger stated that The the Colony at BrynDu will be on the agenda on February 14 meeting.
n . 'r' 1
eta:·dditionaml-illage-f<epn- ewh-omes-in--
C. Ms. Wimberger said a memo is going around regarding Ohio's Bicentennial
Commission,and signage needs to be considered for Granville. They are considering a sign similar to that at the entrance of the Old Colony Burial Ground.. The Beautification
Committee wants a consistent sign package and we could offer suggestions to Village
Council and the community for signs at Granville's entrances. Mr. Salvage does not want
a sign just like everyone else's.
Our borders should be identified, and Mr. Burriss thought such signs should be
discreet and dignified.We should consider whether to combine the RotaryK/iwanis signs
with the Bicentennial sign. Mr. Wernet would not like to see banner signs. Signs could be
small because people drive through slowly.
D. Mr. Salvage wants to try to keep our meetings at 7:30 p.m.
E. Mr. Myers suggested waiting until we receive Mr. Hurst's memo before we
decide on a process to be followed. He does not want to write legal briefs. Mr. Salvage
just wants to refer to relevant sections of the code. Mr. Burriss wants to keep Ms.
Wimberger's Agenda Memos on permanent file
F. The group wondered what happened to the recommendation to hire a Zoning
Inspector. Ms. Wimberger is doing an excellent job but needs relief. She responded that
some staff positions have been realigned to enable inspecting to be done.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR A UNDER NEW
BUSINESS ( Watson)AND A UNDER OLD BUSINESS ( Contini)AS FORMAL
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION. MR„.BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED, 1
Next Meetings: February 14 and February 28
Adjournment: 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
rr
5
Granville Planning Commission
Agenda
January 24,2000;pdp.m. 1) CALL TO ORDER 1prn
2)ROLL CALL
3) Procedural Comments for the Commission by the Law Director
4) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A)January 10, 2000
6) SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES
7) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
8) NEW BUSINESS
IA) Ann &Perry Watson: 127 West Maple Street
VRD, AROD 00-002
Zoning &Architectural Permit Application
B) Jean Hoyt: 117 Locust Place
VRD, AROD 00-003
Zoning &Architectural Permit Application
9) OLD BUSINESS
L/ A) Steve Contini; 210 Sunrise Street
SRD-B, AROD 99016-M
Zoning &Architectural Permit modification-addition length
B) George Fackler-Fackler Country Gardens: 2326 Newark-Granville Road
SBD, TCOD 99151-M
Zoning &Architectural Permit modification -greenhouse roof
C) Sign Code Revision (Chapter 1189)
Proposal to Village Council
D) Village Offices Building-141 East Broadway
Canvas awning color/ pattern
10) WORK SESSION?
11) FINDING OF FACT approvals
None
12) MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
A)Next GPC meeting -Monday, February 14, 2000 , 7:30 p.m. in Village Council Chambers.
Memorandum
To: Granville Planning Commission
From: Kathryn S Wimberger,Village Planner
Date: January 19, 2000
Re: GPC Meeting on Monday, January 24,2000, 7:30 p.m.
New Business
Administrative Actions:
Application:
Location:
Applicant:
Zoning:
Use:
00-002-Zoning & Architectural Permit Application
127 West Maple Street
Ann &Perry Watson
VRD,AROD
Residential -single family
Request:
1. To enclose a 4ft. by 10ft. area for exterior storage.
2. To add a bedroom over the existing first floor kitchen.
Relevant Sections:
1159.01
1159.03
1159.05
1161.02
1161.05
mr•1]1111Eh1]2L, L
Village Residential District -Purpose
Village Residential District -Development Standards
Village Residential District -Procedure for Approval
Architectural Review Overlay Distrid-Application review
Architectural Review Overlay District -Standards and Criteria
Facts:
The addition will not be able to be seen from a straight front elevation. The dimensions of the
second floor room are 26ft. x 10ft. All other elevations are shown in the plans. The changes
to the house involve GPC review for architectural standards as Chapter 1161 allows. The
BZBA will review a variance request on January 27m for side yard setback. While not
specifically indicated, the elevations show double hung windows on the side elevations for the
second level addition, and some strip windows on the rear ( or south)elevation. The roof
overhang will be approximately 1ft. With the exception of the rear windows, it appears that
the materials will be consistent with the existing structure as shown on the south elevation the
scalloping detail and the siding will be the same as the existing. Bam type doors will be used
to enter the enclosed storage area ( 4ft. x 10ft.)and the entrance will be from the west side.
Analysis:
a) Height. The height does not exceed the existing structure.
b) Building Massing. The house will appear largerfrom both sides and possibly the rear.
c) Roof Shape. Will match existing.
e Page 1
A

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.