GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
Members Present: WJailckkeBnfuerlrdiss, Barb Lucier,Keith Myers,Mark Parris,Richard Salvage, Carl
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Ned Roberts, Sherill Mullins, Dan Rogers B&arbara Franks, Sharon Sellitto, Jim Siegel, Frank B. Murphy, Dave Shurtz, Jim Cooper,Art Chonko, Bob Yonka, Brian Miller, Jim Gorry Citizens'Comments: None
The Chair,Keith Myers,swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of May 29,2001:MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Frank Murphy.33 Wexford Drive - Lot Split
Mr. Dorman said the application is to split Lot 101 and divide it between Lots 102 and 100 in
order to increase the size of these two lots. The previous lot split, approved last December, intended to split some of Lot 100 and add to 101, but it did not work out.
Frank Murphy, who lives at Lot 101, said that this proposal would decrease the total number of
lots by one.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 01-055 AS SUBMITTED. MR.
SALVAGE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Sharon Sellito.215 S. Cherry Street A-pplication Modification
Mr. Dorman stated the applicant wants to modify the previously approved fence and build a white
picket fence in a smaller section ofthe yard. He provided details ofthe fence. Last year the owner ofthe
property,Ms. Sellitto, was going to sell it to another person,for whom the previously approved fence was
designed,but he did not buy it after all. Now the owner,Ms. Sellitto,wants a different fence.
Ms. Sellito added that the big tree would be inside the fence. She may be able to paint the fence
before installing it.
MR..SALVAGE MOVED TO CONSIDER THIS A MINOR MODIFICATION. MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION # 00-088
AS PRESENTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
Granville Planning Commission,6/11/ 01, 2
Denison UniversityC -onstruct a restroom building at the soccer field
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant wishes to construct a restroom building near the soccer
field and lacrosse field. It will be splitface concrete block with asphalt shingles. It will have vinyl siding
Art Chonko said it would be similar to the one on the other side ofthe street. Everything is
compliant with the building codes.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 01-068 AS PRESENTED MR. PARRIS
SECONDED,AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Edward andDonna Jenkins,327 N.Pearl StreetA -ir Conditioner
Mr. Dorman said the unit will be on the south side,38 %from' the property line.
Edward Jenkins added that it would be on the side. Bushes will shield it from the street,and it
won't be visible from the street.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 01-070 WITH THE CONDITION THAT
APPROPRIATE VEGETATION BE USED TO SCREEN THE UNIT. MR.WILKENFELD
SECONDED,AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLYAPPROVED.
Shurtz Management,204 Mitnson StreetS i-gns
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TAKE 01-046 OFF THE TABLE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
At the last meeting GPC wanted to table this because the applicant was not present to answer
questions. Tonight David Shurtz explained the rationale for the No Parking signs,saying that vehicles
from the construction company and others park there in the grassy area. This is private property and they
don't want cars there. One sign is between the two garage doors, and the other is on the parking lot at the
Mr. Parris observed that this was originally tabled because it was seen as an obscure location, but
Mr. Shurtz said people park there overnight sometimes and he cannot complain to the police ifthere are
no signs prohibiting parking. The building is not being used now except for storage. When asked whether
he would take down a sign when new tenants arrive,Mr. Shurtz said this is up to his father. It's a narrow
drive and cars have smashed into the culvert several times. Ms. Lucier asked whether one sign might be
sufficient, and Mr. Shurtz stated that people probably don't understand where our property line is, and this
would be a gray area without a sign.
There are two tow-away signs and one business sign. Mr. Salvage is not sure whether this signage
would fall under our rules for variances. He thinks we have allowed for some ofthese under the Ohio
Revised Code. He does not see a need for the variance. People see a parking lot and want to park there.
Perhaps they could remove the business sign.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 01-046 WITH THE CONDITION THAT
Granville Planning Commission,6/11/ 01, 3
THE CURRENT BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGN BE REMOVED. SECONDED, MR.WILKENFELD AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Schools.248 New Burg StreetT -woS-torv Addition
Mr. Salvage recused himselffrom this application and presented the application on behalf ofthe school. }
MR..PARRIS MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE. MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED,AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Dorman said the school would like to have a two-story addition,brick with a metal roof In addition to the high school addition,the first phase would be to extend the asphalt driveway in front of the middle school to the front ofthe high school, which would require a new curb cut. Phase II would be a new addition between the two schools.
Mr. Salvage explained that as part ofthe construction program,the school wants to add to their
science space and to add nine new teaching rooms because of a tremendous growth in the high school
population. There is adequate parking, and the storm water has been planned for.
Ms. Lucier asked whether the parking,in the front driveway extension,was for teachers,students,
drop-offs,or visitors;and Mr. Salvage replied the intention was not to have busses circle around the
building. Some of the additional parking will be for visitors and some for staff. They are encouraging
drop-offs in the rear. With an extra curb cut,Ms. Lucier was concerned about safety for bikers crossing
the road Mr. Salvage said the school wants to increase security after hours so they can only use the main
entrance. The architect said they want to isolate busses from cars. AA*1 46#-
Mr. Dorman said the Tree and Landscape Committee would meet tomorrow night and make their
recommendations to GPC. Jim Siegel added that he had an opportunity to review the plans with Mr.
Dorman and then he went out and paced off some of the area. He had a few concerns about some of the
trees that will be lost as well as some ofthe trees along New Burg where the new curb cut will be.
Regarding some of the species that the landscapers chose,he is concerned about the over proliferation of
ash because of illnesses or insects. He recommends finding a good balance between hardwoods and
ornamentals, adding good color. He said they would lose one and maybe two 5-6-year-old ash trees with
the new curb cut.
Mr. Salvage said the timeline starts this summer, although the construction schedule has not been
finalized. The new intermediate and high school should be ready for the 2002-2003 school year. They will
keep the modular units for another year.
Mr. Salvage requested that GPC consider the addition and the driveway extension separately from
the landscape plan. The architect was told a landscape plan was required and quickly drew one up,
although he would rather have delayed it until a more thorough study could be made. Mr. Myers was
concerned about the foundation plantings around the building and recommended clustering with a rain
strip plan, rather than little bushes,which would require much maintenance. Mr. Siegel agreed.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 01-054 WITH THE FOLLOWING
1. THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS SEPARATED FROM THIS APPLICATION AND WILL
BE CONSIDERED LATER.
2. THAT MINOR ADJUSTMENTS IN THE POSITION OF THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY BE
ALLOWED IN ORDER TO SAVE AS MANY EXISTING TREES AS POSSIBLE.
MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND THE MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY. ( MR.
SALVAGE HAD RECUSED HIMSELF.)
Dan RogersN -onc-ompliant garage
Mr. Salvage recused himself from this discussion. }
Granville Planning Commission,6/11/ 01, 4
Mr. Rogers has filed an application,but this is a work session,said Mr. Dorman. He showed
pictures ofthe current garage and the planned garage.
Ned Roberts,builder,said the main difference is to change to more of a saltbox style and getting
rid of the hip roof idea. The overhang has been redesigned,and the rear windows were changed. The door
will be six-paneled and recessed.
Ms. Franks objected to the roofline. Ned Roberts said they have agreed to do this,and they want
something on paper so they can move on.
Mr. Myers wanted to deal with the roofline. Options are ( 1)hip roofthat matches house or ( 2)a
gable saltbox. Mr. Burriss felt the saltbox was more in keeping with a carriage house for the time period
of the house. In the historic context for a home of the size of the Rogers's, the garage would have been an
out-building;more of a service structure and a saltbox is more in keeping with that. A hip roof is more ,
There 0 was discussion at one point of adding a cornice,and Dan Rogers said that has been in tha
,/'plans from the beginning;he wanted the building to look like the house. There will be brackets to match
the house. Mr.M- pesa»id the structure should be subordinate to the house. Ned Roberts understands about massing They suggested an awning roof like an eyebrow, over
Vt»the sliding garage doors,and that would break up the massing either with a saltbox or hipped roof. Mr. Rogers explained the guttear-ndd-ownspout plan,and it was found acceptable.
Mr. Parris was concerned about windows,setting precedents,and about variances needed. Mr.
Dorman stated that BZBA granted variances-imtialty and they would have to apply for setback and lot
coverage again,depending on what GPC approves. d>ALUL4 /f»4-*.'Z . 0.-2 Z*c1* 4- - Members discussed the issues of deadlines passed and about noncompliance, and the fact that this
property has gone from one Board to another for a long time. The Legal Advisor said they could apply
and apply and apply if nobody approves it. He said he would check into this issue.
Mr. Myers thought the roof was fairly big and he hopes that the roof with brackets and window
detail will improve the odds with a new application and decrease the massing
Mr. Burris said at one point we had an application for the second roof over garage doors and
pedestrian entrance and he is hoping for consistency. They could be detailed more. Let the pedestrian
entrance and the vehicle entrance each stand on their own. Mr. Myers added that if we were to consider
a hip roof and bracket,the doors themselves would need to be brought into the same vernacular and match
the house more. He thought the design was too big for alhed=xeef. n . E* **ry 4«-f L/ -,d-+'' -
Mr. Burris liked the initial plans and considered them more appropriate for the historic elements of
the village, but he is willing to look at any proposal.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said that when you look down the driveway,you don't see the space between the
garage and the house so it almost looks like the garage is an extension from the house and there is nothing
to differentiate them. He also said the existing shed should be removed as part ofthe application.
Mr. Burriss wants to match brackets to those on the house. The more options you can explore in
the drawing, the better offwe will all be. He prefers a hip roof and two windows together and two little
windows on the sides on the second fioor. Paired windows are a good feature and a stronger tie than four
Granville Planning Commission,6/11/ 01, 5
broken up windows.
Mr.Myers summarizes: What he is hearing is that ( 1)GC is Willing appropriate detailing and ( to entertain a hip roofwith probably preferred; 2)a small roofover the garage doors3) )(window patterning on the proposal is aterial on the new hip roofovegr-afa2g2«5§h=au§ld=be=me5t)w*e*need
to see plantings and site plan. Mr. Burriss added 6 etailing ot garage doors,because ifwe are moving towards a complementary structure,we need to look at this;and ( 7)architectural eaves and brackets] ed
Roberts agreed with this summary. 01, U.Cts-Y L_6,4954
Finding of Fact:
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A, B, C, D (Murphyrr Sellito, Denison, Jenkins)UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND A UNDER OLD BUSINESS S·(hultz),
AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE VILLAGE
PLANNER'S MEMO OF JUNE 7, 2001. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNDER OLD BUSINESS MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE FINDING OF FACT FOR
ITEM B (School)AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE
VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF JUNE 7, 2001. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR. SALVAGE WAS RECUSED).
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked the Legal Advisor whether there was anything that could be done by
Village Council or us to prevent setting a precedent in the future. The Legal Advisor said short of
disapproving the application and prosecuting them, and that is about all you could do. Village Council
would have to do that. Punitive aspects have to come from Village Administration. More discussion
ensued on inspection and enforcement, and Mr. Dorman said he does do inspections. The Village did
issue a desist order on Dan Rogers to halt construction, but there was no further penalty.
Adiournment: 9:30 p.m.
Next Meetings: June 25 and July 9