Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes 9/11/2000

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 11,2000

Minutes

GPC,9/11/ 00, 1

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

Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner

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

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

BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens' Comments:None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

New Business:

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

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

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

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

trying to make deliveries for the construction.

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

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

Commission decided on 9 months for the duration.

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

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

APPROVED.

Old Business:

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

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

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

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

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

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

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING APPLICATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND IT

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

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

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

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

Abraham agreed.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE PROPOSED MODIFICATION SUBJECT TO THE

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

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

GPC,9/11/ 00,2

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

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

SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

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

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

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

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

start of the parking area.

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

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

5' of concrete and 5' of grass.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING

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

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

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

MATERIALS USED ON BUILDING AROUND GRASS AREA SHOWN ON PROPOSAL WITH

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

BE INSTALLED PER STANDARD ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS. MR. LUKCO

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

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

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

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

drawings to incorporate the old structure into the new structure.

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

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the house onto the garage.

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

will be 6:12.

GPC,9/11/ 00,3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Work Session:

Welcome to Granville"signs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a work session item for the next two GPC meetings.

Maximum Square Footage

rt 56 TI)

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

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

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

Finding of Fact:

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

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

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

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

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

APPROVED.

GPC,9/11/ 00,4

Next Meeting: September 25, 2000

Adjournment:9:30 p.m.

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.