Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes 5/22/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 22,2000

Minutes

DRAFT

MWeilmkebtiefersldPresent: Jack Burriss,Barbara Lucier,Bernie Lukco,Keith Myers,Richard Salvage,Carl

Members Absent:

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present:Scott Rawson S( entinel)M,ary E. Bline,Robert Seith,Virginia and Robert Abbott,James RAorgcehr,sJim Fowler,Richard Pinkerton,Caroline and Richard Fetter,James R Cooper,Ned Roberts,Dan

Citizens'Comments:

Bob Seith had concerns re GPC's Minutes ofMay 8,which to him had procedural flaws, Two questions were up to a vote: 1()whether the alley ought to be returned to the agreed upon and specified width of 16'and 2( )whether removing parking from that space would be a successful solution of not widening it. As the discussion migrated,emphasis moved to the question of keeping the parking. That was not an issue within the church's purview,but is up to the Village. The alley is narrower than it was two years ago. Cars have continued to get wider and in the coupling of those two issues and reaching a single decision,important issues were missed. He would ask GPC to take it under reconsideration.

As Mr.Myers recalled,the discussion was to consider a minor modification to reduce the alley from 16' to 15'.Parking was technically a Village issue,not the church's. He did ask Mr. Seith and Mr. Acklin whether it would be OK to leave it at 15' and leave the parking,which is less than ideal. Both agreed this

would be OK.The actual decision was made not based on the parking although we were sympathetic. We felt 15' was adequate.

Mr. Seith said that because of the way these two issues were coupled,people did not agree, and felt

15'was not wide enough. There is not enough room to maneuver and cars must ride over the curb,and it's not wide enough for trucks.

Richard Pinkerton stated that this issue was brought to the attention of the church and the Village in

December when they noticed the alley was substantially narrower. Parking in the middle spot is difficult.

Construction vehicles went up over the curb.The contractor should settle this matter with an enforcement

bond in order to honor his commitment. Before,the corner flared out more,but they nipped it. Nobody in

the church took action,and the thrust of their concern seemed to be protecting the hemlock trees. Mr.

Pinkerton recommended widening the alley to the compressors and give additional sidewalk space, but the

church was not interested. He felt the neighbors should have been notified when GPC discussed the matter.

Mr. Salvage would like to see the width remeasured and the curb radius checked. Mr. Myers

suggested that the Village Engineer prepare a drawing and survey and give curb radius. We want to compare what it was before,what was proposed and,and what it is now. Mr. Lukco would also like to invite to the

meeting whoever is in charge of alleys. Mr. Salvage thought the GPC was thinking of alley width,not the

curb.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT WE PUT ON THE NEXT MEETING AGENDA THAT WE ARE

THINKING OF RECONSIDERING THIS,BASED ON THE TECHNICAL FINDINGS OF THE VILLAGE

ENGINEER. MR.LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR.BUIRRISS

RECUSED HIMSELF).

Richard Cherry stated that residents on South Main have called to the police's attention the fact that

people drive too fast through the construction. The Village should put up some s"low"signs. Mr.Myers

suggested he talk to Mr. Hickman,and Ms. Lucier took note for Village Council.

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak

Minutes: April 24,2000: On Page 2 under Fuson,change H"eritage Overlay District"to TCOD.

May 8. Since there was some concern about recording the meeting,Ms. Wimberger and Ms.

r.

GPC Minutes May 22,2000

Allen will listen to the tapes and make any revisions necessary.

MR.SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE MAY 8 MINUTES PENDING CORRECTIONS. MR.LUKCO

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Sign Code: MR.LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN CODE MINUTES. MR.BURRISS

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROLVED.

New Business:

Fetter Electrical Contractors,80 Westgate Drive - New building

Dick and Caroline Fetter wish to construct a 4788 sq.ft.building which would house the electrical

business and the Horse treats businessa (conditional use permit has been requested from theBZBA).This

project was discussed at a work session in December,and Mr.Lukco thought everything discussed then was

incorporated into the application.a building is already on-site. The electrical business will utilize it for office

space. There is sufficient parking for all uses. Tree and Landscape Commission will review the landscape

plan and BZBA will consider the conditional use application this week. The Village engineer will also

review the drainage issues.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR ZONING & ARCHITECTURAL PERMIT

SUBJECT TO BZBA APPROVAL AND SUBJECT TO TREE AND LANDSCAPE COMMISSION

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

Greystone Country House,128 South Main Street -Change ofuse

Mary Bline wishes to change the use from residential and office to retail and office. They are

hoping to move their residence someplace else ifthis business change works. There are two buildings:one

for the office and one for painting business and residence. They want to join both offices in the residential

building. The business use ofthe property would not affect the parking associated with the business. Ms.

Bline said that the majority ofher customers are walk-ins who have parked somewhere else.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.LUKCO SECONDED,

AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITYM (R.WILKENFELD ABSTAINED).

Z.

VirginiaAbbott,c o (ntractorU-rban Environments1)0,98 NewarkG-ranville Road F-ence and Landscaping

Virginia and Robert Abbott wish to add a fence and landscaping within the TCOD and

remove the existing planting berm island along the driveway.

James Arch explained the exact location and said that the fence would be screened from the road by

hemlocks and other plantings. He showed photographs ofthe residence and stated the privacy fence will

match one of the house colors. The fence is 6 feet tall.

MR.WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW THE FOUNTAIN PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. THE FENCE

COLOR WILL MATCH ONE OF THOSE ON THE HOUSE. MR.LUKCO SECONDED. MOTION WAS

APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

Joseph and Karen Hickman,326 North Granger Street B-asement under House

Mr.Hickman explained that they have a short basement under part of the house and a crawl space.

They propose to jack-up the house and dig space for a full block basement.

Mr. Burriss stated that GPC needs to approve the aboveground blocks.

MR.LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR BASEMENT SO THAT CONSTRUCTION

2

GPC Minutes May 22,2000

CAN BEGIN BUT FINAL APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON GPC'S APPROVING THE BLOCK

THAT WILL SHOW.MR.BURRISS SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bonny and Jim Fowler,214 South Cherry Streetfe -nce

The applicants wish to add a white 3' wood picket fence with caps in the rear ofthe yard for safety

for their children. Ms. Wimberger added that the fence would back up to the neighbor's fence on the north

side ofthe property. The alley running between South Mulberry Street and South Cherry Street borders the

south side ofthe property in question. The traffic on Cherry Street and the alley have become a concern for

the Fowlers. Mr. Lukco stated that the front of the fence should face out.

MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT APPLICATION FOR FENCE IS APPROVED AS SUBMITI'ED. MR.

WILKENFELD SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Sign Code

There are a few grammatical changes to be made.

MR.LUKCO MOVED THAT THE GRANVILLE SIGN CODE 1999 REVISION BE GIVEN A FINAL

EDITING BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND RECOMMENDED THAT IT BE SUBMITTED TO

VILLAGE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Work Sessions:

Rich Cherry,223 South Main Street -Fence

Mr. Cherry explained that the brochure he received from Lowe's was quite different from the fence

available when he went to buy it. It has very wide spaces and is not appropriate,so he decided to make his

own fencing with dog- ears. He wanted to check this out with GPC.

Ms. Wimberger stated that this change needs to be advertised. The modified application is already

submitted. GPC generally thought the change was appropriate,and it will be considered at the next meeting.

Dan Rogers,210 East Maple Street- Garage

Mr.Salvage recused himselffrom this hearing}

Jim Cooper,Attorney,stated that he appeared with Mr. Rogers and Ned Roberts in March and

brought drawings that made an effort to reduce size of building and cutting the volume at the top. They tried

to make the structure look more like the 1997 plan but the appearance was changed and one-third ofthe space

was cut upstairs. At that session it seemed like we were working toward an agreeable session ( Mr. Cooper

said). The discussion focused on detail of doors and windows,etc.,and we are here to supplement these

details.

Ned Roberts said the lap siding will match the house and the trim detail will show finials and sliding

garage doors with glass and knee brace. Mr. Rogers and Mr. Roberts described windows.

Mr. Myers thought they should continue to move forward and that it looks better but will require a

new application. He likes the new double-hung windows in back and thinks the massing is sympathetic.

Mr.Burriss is a little uncomfortable with the appearance of the posts. They need to appear as though

they don't support the weight of the roof. Mr. Rogers agreed and said they would match those of the house

which are more substantial.

Mr. Lukco said that the application should include as much detail as possible so that there is no

misunderstanding as far as elevations, material,and design.

Mr. Rogers explained the gutters and downspouts.

3

GPC Minutes May 22,2000

Finding of Fact:

MR.SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE THE FINDING OF FACT FOR THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

PENDING REVS[IONS IN MINUTES. M {R.BURRISS RECUSED HIMSELF).

MR.SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A-E ON THE AGENDA ARE

CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF THE CODE NOTED IN THE

VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO AND AS RECORDED THIS EVENING.MR.WILKENFELD

SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next meeting:Monday,June 12 and June 26

Adjourned: 9:00 p.m.

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.