Granville Community Calendar

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

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.