Granville Community Calendar

GPC 09/20/99

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 20,1999
Minutes
Members Present:Keith Myers C( hair)R,ichard Salvage,
Members Absent:Carl Wilkenfeld,Bernie Lukco,Bill Wernet,Jack Burriss
Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: none
Called to order: 7:30 p.m.
Citizens'Comments: none
Old Business:
Chapter 1189 - Signs
Revisions ofthe sign code were discussed. Particularly,pages 8-11; the Design
Standards ofthe Planned Industrial C&ommercial Districts,Suburban Business District,
Community Service District in proposed section 1189.05.01. Changes are noted on the
draft copy ofthe proposed sign code revision.
The sign code committee adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
1

GPC 09/11/00

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 10/23/00

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
3
3

GPC 10/10/00

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
l

GPC 11/13/00

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 05/22/00

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. Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4

GPC 05/08/00

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
5

GPC 03/27/00

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
2

GPC 03/13/00

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
3

GPC 06/26/00

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 06/12/00

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. Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
2

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

GPC 01/10/00

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 10,2000
Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Richard Salvage,Bill Wernet,Carl Wilkenfeld V(ice ChairB),arbara Lucier O( bserver)
Members Absent: Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers ( Chair)
Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present:Scott Rawden Sentine/B)e,n and Nadine Rader,Tod Darfus,Greg
Ross,Laura Andujar,Robert O'Neill,Bob Kent,Larry Parr,Fred Abraham,Wayne Lindstrom,M.A. Cohen,Brenda Mix
The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order.
Citizen's Comments: none
The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.)
Minutes of December 13,1999:
Page 4, second paragraph from bottom,C "onsensus of the group believes the
plans to be good,but Mr. Wilkenfeld had some reservations."
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR.
BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
Tod Darfus,233 East Broadway - AC units
The applicant is seeking approval for two air conditioners, one on either side of the
house. The one on the east is less than 10' from the side property line and will need a variance from BZBA. Mr. Darfus is extensively remodeling the home and stated the A.C.
units need to be located close to the furnace for maximum efficiency. Landscaping
hemlocks)will be added in the spring. The sound should not be a problem since neighbors
will also be running their A.C. with windows closed. Others in the area have units also.
MR SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1)APPROVAL FROM BZBA FOR
VARIANCE AND (2)LANDSCAPING TO BE PLANTED WITHIN 6
MONTHS. MR..BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Benjamin and Nadine Rader,311 East College Street
Ms. Wimberger stated the applicants want to make several changes: 1( )add
second story to existing side porch and enclose;2 ()balcony porch on rear3;()add bay
window on east side;4 ()new balcony with removable handrail on west side;and 5( )new
front door and lights. She thought these changes may have been features when the house
1
GPC Minutes,January 10,2000
was built. The plans will aesthetically enhance the house,and materials will match. Mr.
Rader explained that the foundation would not take new flooring and so they decided to
expand.
Mr. Burriss asked exactly where the elevations would be located on the drawings.
and how the balcony relates to the house. Mr. Rader said they are keeping the same door
and adding lights. The roof will be black.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE
CONDITION THAT THE ROOF OVER THE ADDITION AND OVER THE
BAY WINDOW BE BLACK. MR„.BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED..
Work Sessions:
Ross IGA,484 South Main Street
The applicants have made some changes to their plans and would like more input
from GPC. Laura Andujar,Architect, explained the plans: the parking, the second- floor
area, rear facade, etc. Making the front facade an even plane is a possibility,though it
would create a huge building expanse begging relief. They will do the addition in two
phases,but they want total approval from the start. Parking needs to be as close to the
building as possible;having parking in the rear,with no rear entrance,would be difficult
for shoppers and unsafe. They entryway needs to be enhanced.
Mr. Wilkenfeld thought they might not require as much parking as the code
requires,and Mr. Salvage suggested the applicants decide how much parking they need
and apply for a variance.
The Colony at Bryn Du,Robert Kent
The planners are still uncertain whether to install a connecting road to Glyn Tawel.
They have talked with Keith Myers,who is strongly in favor of leaving the road in. Mr.
Myers had some other concerns: 1 ()Add landscaping to rear ofLot 2#facing Newark-
Granville;2 ()put stone at the back of 2#and add windows at the back and side face of
garage;3 ()enter garages from side so no one willlook into garages. Mr.O'Neill
presented an alternate plan for Lots # 1 and 2, saying they want to keep fronts of houses
facing the central green area rather than facing Newark-Granville Road. If they turn
buildings around,they lose continuity. Another option is to have #1 and # 2 face the
entrance road.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said his primary concern is how the project works into the existing
neighborhood. This is a major entry into the Village,and he is concerned about visual
impact along the TCOD with houses this close to the main road. Although he likes the
green at the center,what happens to greenspace on Newark- Granville Road. He wonders
whether there might be another approach . People who live or drive along there now
enjoy the greenspace,and Mr. Wilkenfeld feels a responsibility to the community at large.
Mr. Kent reviewed the originally approved PUD plans and the covenants in place
for the project. He has decreased the number ofunits and added a lot ofgreenspace and is
74
GPC Minutes,January 10,2000
reluctant to because grant any more open areas. They cannot move the project farther back it would impact existing homes.
Mr. Wimberger iterated Mr.Myers' concerns:
Orientation of 1#and 2#and the fact that landscaping is a necessity
Without a connecting road,this is a huge cutd- es-ac in and out. People can't get through to Glyn Tawel to ensure community spirit.
Mr. Rader stated that in the covenants each unit in Phase IV is to be 2500 sq.ft.,
but these would only be 1800 sq.ft. Mr.Kent said that is not correct. The units in the
Colony were always intended to be smaller. Ms. Wimberger will check her records on this
matter,and so will Mr. Kent. Mr.Parr added that in order to get to 2500 sq.ft.,they would have to build two-story houses.
LuAnn Duffus,President,Home Owners'Association,does not feel Mr.Myers
took sufficient time to hear her out. She thinks a road would provide inconvenience and
higher cost: 1( )she prefers less concrete and more greenspace2; ()every time you have
another road,there's the possibility of accidents;3 ()there's no real benefit to having a road here;the road should go to Jones Road. 4( )She appreciates Mr.Wilkenfeld's
concerns and his taking responsibility seriously.5 ()Property owners do not want the road,
and the developer does not want it. 6( )Costs would be higher. D( Mr. Myers talked
about good planning,but good planning designs a road where people want it. (9)People
invested in their property knowing there would be so many square feet between their back
yards and this development. ( 10)More landscaping could be planted as buffer.
Mr. Salvage asked whether the developer could come up with a way for
emergency access only,and Ms. Duffus said they talked about that and it probably could
be done. Mr..Kent said there is a product made that is concrete that looks like grass.
Brenda Mix asked about trees alone Newark-Granville Road and lights shining in
her windows and what the entryway would look like. Mr. Parr described the entryway
and said 200+trees would be moved along the front area.
Michael Cohen echoed opinions of other Glyn Tawel residents and said the vote
was unanimous against the road.
Mr. Burriss had some thoughts:
He wants to hear Mr. Myers give his opinions
At the Master Plan Committee we studied Randal Arendt's book and he said build
golf course communities without golf courses. This plan is in keeping with that idea.
In the alternate plan, Lot #1 is like a leftover lot
Mr. Arendt said a good community is made up of good neighborhoods. This plan
is heading towards a good neighborhood.
The people in the community can enjoy the walkways at Bryn Du. Having the
pathway system and corridor trees leading somewhere says something positive to him.
There is a lot of greenspace
He likes the existing plan rather than the alternate plan.
He does not think they need a connector road
An emergency- road access is a good idea
3
0-
1 ' )C yp* / 1 li t- - ip>eg-/in/u/te--s.J-a<nuq15,2005 Al
A.
90.-. There probably would not be much impact on the schools;however he
recommends a study about schools be made
Mr. Wernet agrees with these points and thinks more greenspace would be nice
but the earlier approval is persuasive. He likes bike trails and sidewalks. He would like to
see elevations on the other side.
Mr.Wilkenfeld reiterated his wish to move the project back 50- 70'.He does not
think an access road is necessary. People on the other side ofNewark- Granville need to
be considered.
Finding of Fact:
MR..SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR A AND B UNDER
NEW BUSINESS ( Darfus and Rader)AS FORMAL DECISION OF THE
COMMISSION. MR.BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Next Meetings: January 24 and February 14
Adjournment: 9:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4

GPC 02/28/00

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
3

GPC 12/11/00

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. Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 08/28/00

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

GPC 04/24/00

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

GPC 04/10/00

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

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.