GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
Granville Planning Commission
January 24,2000;pdp.m. 1) CALL TO ORDER 1prn
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
12) MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
A)Next GPC meeting -Monday, February 14, 2000 , 7:30 p.m. in Village Council Chambers.
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.
00-002-Zoning & Architectural Permit Application
127 West Maple Street
Ann &Perry Watson
Residential -single family
1. To enclose a 4ft. by 10ft. area for exterior storage.
2. To add a bedroom over the existing first floor kitchen.
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
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.
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
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION