Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 12/9/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION December 9, 2002 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: Jack Burriss Citizens Present: Susan & Doug Rockwell, Bernardita Llanos, Chuck & Lisa Whitman, Dennis Cauchon, Barb Hammond, Kirsten Pape Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of November 13, 2002: Postponed until next meeting.

New Business: 

Susan and Doug Rockwell, 129 West Broadway – Fence and Arbor Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants wish to install a western wood cedar fence and arbor with 2’ sections of fencing between garage and house. It will be 15’ long, and the finished side will face the street. No variances are necessary. Mr. Rockwell said the fence and arbor will be stained white to match picket fence in the back. Ms. Rockwell added that there will be a gate. A previous fence was taken down to allow room for a patio. The fence will have a moon gate and two fence sections and will be 5’ tall at its highest point. MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-151 AS PRESENTED. MR.WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bernardita Llanos, 222 South Prospect Street – Fence

 Mr. Dorman stated that the application is to install two sections of fence, 3’6” tall. One would be 21’ long and the other 24’ long. No variances are needed. Kirsten Pape showed drawings and showed where the fence and parking and landscaping would be located. The two-board fence will be 3’6” high. She explained that it will be a pressure treated natural color and will weather for a year. Mr. Parris thought that pressure treated would not lend itself to become more attractive with age, whereas cedar will weather. Ms. Pape said they could put in a gray pigment.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-152 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE FENCE BE STAINED A COLOR APPROPRIATE TO THE HOUSE, WITH A YEAR TO STAIN IT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Chuck Whitman, 130 North Prospect Street – Change of Use

 Mr. Dorman said the application is to change the use from a hair salon to a frozen custard shop. The category will change from A, “Service,” to D, “Food, beverage and drugs.” Mr. Whitman added that the frozen custard is a Midwestern product, about 10% butterfat with egg and honey added. There will be no inside seating and will also sell hot dogs, barbecue, and soda. Columbus has a small chain of frozen custard shops. The Whitmans have been in the food service business 21 years and have purchased a home here. The frozen custard is made fresh daily.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-154 FOR A CHANGE OF USE AS PRESENTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Chuck Whitman, 130 North Prospect Street – Window and Sidewalk Signs

 For the above-noted business, two signs are requested: (1) 2’ x 4’ wooden sidewalk sign with green, red, and white letters. This sign will have a removable insert for daily featured flavors. It will only be outside when store is open. (2) Window Sign 22”x46”, with colors to match those on the awning. He did not know yet whether it would be painted or vinyl. Mr. Salvage said we don’t have a preference, but a painted sign would last longer. Usually a sign company will give a sign rendering with colors, and he would like Mr. Dorman to take a look at it. Colors on both signs will match each other and the awning. Looking at the store hours, Mr. Dorman asked if that could be an insert in case they change, and Mr. Whitman said sure.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-155 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT ONCE THE APPLICANT HAS RENDERINGS FROM A SIGN CONTRACTOR, HE WILL SHOW IT TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway – Shed Remodeling

 The application is for two window additions to convert the potting shed into living space. He also wants to build a firewood shed. One stipulation is that it should not be used as living space for a second family. Dennis Cauchon said this space would be for an office or a play place for his kids. It will have no plumbing. Mr. Parris asked about the color of the woodshed and was told it would have cedar shingles on top and the color will match the house. He wants to change windows to 4 over 4, double hung and asks for a little flexibility. They will be roughly the same size, but all three windows will match. He is only replacing those already there and one new window on the side. Windows on ends will match. The porch is not part of this application. Mr. Salvage wants a rendering at such time that the porch is desired.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-158 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE 3 WINDOWS TO BE REPLACED ON THE REAR OF THE POTTING SHED BE MATCHING WINDOWS; (2) THAT THE CASEMENT WINDOW TO BE ADDED TO ONE END WILL MATCH AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO THE CASEMENT WINDOW ON THE OTHER END OF THE STRUCTURE; (3) THAT THE FIREWOOD SHED WILL EITHER BE WEATHERED CEDAR OR PAINTED TO MATCH THE COLOR OF THE POTTING SHED; AND (4) THAT THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THERE WILL BE NO PLUMBING IN THE STRUCTURE AND WILL NOT BE USED AS LIVING SPACE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Barb Hammond, 123 East Broadway – Window Signs and Sidewalk Sign

 Mr. Dorman said this is a modification to add a 2x4 plastic sidewalk sign and a pair of window signs to the previous canopy sign application. There will be two identical 20”x9” signs, one on either side of the door, with vinyl cut letters. She will need a variance for the number of signs, since 4 are allowed, and she has 5: Canopy front, Canopy on rear, window sign to the right, window sign to the left, and sidewalk sign. Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that the signs are small and tasteful. Mr. Parris asked whether we normally consider the sidewalk sign as part of the building signage or as a separate issue. Mr. Dorman said 4 signs per storefront are allowed, and in his opinion it’s an individual sign and contributes to the signage for the store. Mr. Wilkenfeld does not feel comfortable in this situation, and Mr. Parris questions why now we are including sidewalk signs as part of the building signage since we have not done this before. Mr. Dorman stated that one obstacle is interpretation of the code. Understandings of the code change, and he does not think it became an issue of variance but we did count the sidewalk sign at the bakery. Mr. Parris feels we should have a discussion to decide if changing to the way you are talking (interpreting the sign code) is the way we need to go in the future and why. Mr. Dorman said zoning officials have to decide what the intention of the code is. The sidewalk sign is not a permanent sign but only open when the store is open, Mr. Wilkenfeld added, so how do you categorize it? Mr. Salvage thought we should find this application in compliance. Ms. Hammond said the sign would be located close to the building so as not to impede pedestrian traffic. Mr. Dorman asked whether in the future the sidewalk sign would be changed to omit “Now Open” and the hours. Any changes will have to return to GPC. She said the letters are magnetic and easily changed. Ms. Lucier does not think a sidewalk sign is even needed, since people know about it, and Ms. Hammond said at certain times of the day it can look like they are not open and she especially wants it present on Sundays. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO FIND APPLICATION #02-124M2 TO BE A MINOR MODIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL PERMIT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-124M2 AS PRESENTED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Parris wants the sidewalk sign interpretation issue added to the agenda of a short future meeting.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A,B,C,D,E UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF DECEMBER 5. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:15 p.m. Next Meetings: January 13 and 27 

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 11/25/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION November 25, 2002 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: none Citizens Present: Ted Handel, John Minsker, Walt Denny, Tim Riffle, Miles Waggoner, Mary Milligan Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of October 28, 2002: Mr. Dorman added comments from the tape onto Page 3 for clarity.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of November 13, 2002: Page 3, Line 12, after “batten strips,” add for the garage door.

 Page 4, in Paragraph (2), Mr. Salvage asked Mr. Dorman to look into whether we could record restrictions that would be delivered to anyone when they buy a new house. They should know they are buying in a historic district.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business: 

Mound City Products, 120 Westgate Drive – Canopy Sign Mr. Dorman explained that the previous ground sign has been taken down, and the applicant wants approval for a canopy sign on the valance already installed. A variance is necessary for size of the canopy sign, which is ca. 12.7 sq.ft. and 6’ is maximum. Ted Handel said the letters are 8.7” high and the length is ca. 17.’5”. Letters are light beige on the brown, light green and beige canopy. Ms. Lucier asked if there is a reason why the sign was installed before approval was granted, and Mr. Handel said they talked and when he returned back from a trip, the awning was up, so he got a letter from the Village Planner. Mr. Main had gone to look at it and he would support the variance in that this building is pretty far from the street, and a smaller sign would hardly be visible from the road. Mr. Wilkenfeld added that there is not much traffic on Westgate. When Ms. Lucier looked at it, it did not seem overly large. She would suggest a compromise of removing the two logos to make it smaller. Mr. Salvage said if this was a wall sign, they would be entitled to have 66 sq.ft. Mr. Parris could argue for a variance based on the fact there is no other wall sign. He would rather see an awning sign than a big plastic sheet. Mr. Wilkenfeld applied the criteria to the application:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. N/A B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. N/A C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. N/A D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. .Mr. Parris stated that undue privilege is not conferred if you consider that we have a 10.6 sq.ft. sign which is the only sign identifying that building and the fact that the applicant could be granted a much larger wall sign. E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. No, it would not.

Mr. Salvage asked if they are going to install a wall sign, and the answer was No, only if they get a tenant for upstairs.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE A VARIANCE ON APPLICATION #02-150 BASED ON SECTIONS 1147.03 (D) AND (E) OF THE ZONING CODE. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-150 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THIS WILL BE THE ONLY SIGN FOR MOUND CITY PRODUCTS ON THE FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Methodist Church – Material and Color Mr. Dorman noted that the previous approved approval was conditioned on final approval of the exterior lighting package and color for stucco.

 Materials: Miles Waggoner showed the stucco sample material and color for east and south elevations. He described how decorative tile will be used. He said it is very difficult to match colors and materials exactly so they are distinguishing the old from the new to make a nice contrast. John Minsker added it’s just enough of a contrast to make a big difference. The original was built in 1924. Mr. Burriss asked for details on window colors and was told it would be a dark bronze as a contrast with the stucco. It is not trim work per se.

Lighting: John Minsker showed the actual lighting fixture to be used with the exception that it will be fluorescent rather than incandescent. It will be painted bronze to match the window bronze. There are two located on each side of the Broadway window, the color is satin bronze SB2. The four lights on Linden are on each side of the window, one lighting the elevator entrance, and one on the north. On the Main Street elevation they have two, located on each side of the posts that match those on the opposite side. One light will be on the Educational Building. At present there are two wrought iron lights on the Broadway entrance. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked if they would consider lighting the front from the ground rather than the wall, and the answer was No. Mr. Waggoner said they would put the lights on a timer to go off after midnight. Mr. Burriss asked about the downspouts, and the men did not know the color to be used but thought it would be about the same as the window frames. There should be some relationship and coordination between them, stated Mr. Burriss. Mr. Salvage wondered whether the lights could be dark bronze also, and Mr. Parris did not think that they have to match as long as it is in the same color family. Mr. Wilkenfeld was concerned that the new part is going to be lit up and seen more than the old part, and that is why he thought of highlighting. John Minsker said they had thought of lighting these two windows from inside and asked whether Mr. Wilkenfeld would be more comfortable with lights on the Broadway side and Mr. Wilkenfeld would be. It is an especially beautiful building and you really want to be looking at those stained glass windows. He asked. “If you put all these lights on the new building and you think that is too much, would you consider removing some of them?” John Minsker said they match lights inside. Mr. Parris liked the idea of lighting the alley and thinks there is enough distinction between the old building and the educational building. They are only putting one light there. They might want to consider 2 rather than 4 on the front side. Mr. Minsker asked that since there is no sidewalk there, would you be comfortable with no lights. And Mr. Wilkenfeld would like to see the lights off there. Mr. Waggoner would be willing to give up the 4 lights on the front. Mr. Parris stated they could be scaled down to 2. Mr. Waggoner would rather not put on any so they are highlighting the back to the parking lot. Mr. Burriss would be comfortable with Mr. Dorman approving colors of lighting fixtures. We need sample of downspouts and window trim to see how it works with the lights. Colors need to be in the same family. The applicants agreed to remove 4 lights off the front façade.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE LIGHTING AND WALL DETAILS FOR APPLICATION #01-049: 1) THE STUCCO COLOR AND TEXTURE WILL BE AS PER SAMPLES PROVIDED AT THIS MEETING; AND 2) THE LIGHT FIXTURES WILL BE BY VISTA LIGHTING. THE PATTERN AS PER THE EXHIBIT PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT USING TWO (2) 13 WATT FLOURESCENT BULBS AND THE COLOR BEING SATIN BRONZE. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO AGREEING TO REMOVE THE FOUR (4) LIGHT FIXTURES FROM THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF THE NEW ADDITION TO THE BUILDING. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: Mark Milligan, 212 East Elm St. – Garage

 Mary Milligan stated that her husband had a heart attack, so Tim Riffle will present the proposed application. He said they want a two-car 24’x28’ 1½ story garage for storage. They want to keep as much green space as possible and lot coverage would be about 35%. It will have a metal roof, Dutch lap siding, and a concrete driveway. It is 1’ from the rear property line. A pergola will help shield the garage, and there is a fence and big shrubs. Ms. Lucier thinks it would be an attractive structure but it does not seem to have much to do with the way the house looks. Mr. Burriss had similar concerns; the oval window is a beautiful one but it’s of a more refined vocabulary than what could be found on the house. For the finials there are lots of examples of garages not matching houses. Mr. Ripple said right across the alley is a garage that was moved and it does not fit. Mr. Burriss said it does not have to match exactly but should be similar. Mr. Wilkenfeld likes the way the garage looks on the alley, which is one of the nicest parts of the village, and he hopes the applicant “will not mess up.” Mr. Ripple said the garage doors may change slightly. This is an overhead door similar to those at Monomoy. They have not thought of colors, but Mrs. Milligan thought it would match the back shed. They had not thought of a textured driveway. Mr. Parris said that given the look of the alley and the look of the garage, if they could go with textured concrete with a color in it, it would really complement what you are doing along the alley. Mr. Burriss said if you are going to do any lighting, there may be a couple of lights; we will need to look at them. (And gutters and downspouts.) 

Finding of Fact:

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Mound City) AND ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Methodist Church), AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF NOVEMBER 22. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:37 p.m. Next Meetings: December 9. We will tentatively cancel the meeting on December 23. 

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 11/13/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2002 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld Citizens Present: Sharon Sellitto, Joe Hickman, Ned Roberts, Scott Hickey, George Evans, Brian Newkirk Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of October 28, 2002: Ms. Lucier brought up a confusing phrase on Page 3, Line 5, about the fact that Mr. Dorman “has the authority to cite…” This topic will be discussed later in this meeting, so approval of minutes was postponed until next meeting.

New Business:

George & Mary Evans, 126 S. Cherry Street – Fence

 Mr. Dorman has initiated a new video system, whereby he photographs a property on the agenda to clarify what the site looks like. This historic wrought iron fence was previously installed next door and before that it was at the Opera House. The fence is 28 ½” high and is about 1’ from the sidewalk. It is already installed, much to the despair of Sharon Sellitto, who had to return to GPC three times with her own application. She thought everybody should be treated the same, and she was surprised to see how quickly the applicant received a permit. Although Ms. Evans said she wanted to install it before it rusted, Ms. Sellitto said it would not have rusted that quickly. Joe Hickman said Ms. Evans came to speak with him and she did try to go through the process, and he wanted to be sure GPC was aware of this fact. He also wanted GPC to try to find a process by which to streamline the application process. Mr. Parris has no problem with the fence but he does have a concern that the applicant did not go through the correct process. We have a lot of applications where people have not received a permit or where they have put up something other than what was approved. One reason for a hearing is so that neighbors may have an opportunity to express their concerns. Ms. Evans did speak to her neighbors, who had no objections. One reason we see so many after-the-fact applications or divergences is that our Village Planner is conscientious about enforcement of the zoning code. Mr. Salvage thinks the fence is fine but it is unfortunate it went through the process the way it did, but Ms. Evans gets credit for trying to go through the Village Manager.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-142. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Brian & Leslie Newkirk, 226 East Broadway – Identification Sign

Mr. Dorman said the application is for a 2’x 6” hanging identification sign at the back entrance of the front porch for a separate tenant. It will be off white with green lettering to match the Newkirk sign in front. The chain will be the same only lighter in weight. Mr. Newkirk apologized for applying for an after-the-fact permit, but he has done so many things, he didn’t realize he was remiss in this area. The tenant was anxious to have a sign put up quickly. Mr. Burriss noted there is consistency between the two signs. When Ms. Lucier stated that only name and address signs are permitted and this sign below the originally approved projecting sign has an advertisement hanging from it, Mr. Dorman said he and Mr. Salvage discussed this and decided it was suitable. A projecting sign can have commercial messages. 

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-143 AS SUBMITTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Scott Hickey, 212 S. Main Street – Signs

The application is for several signs: (1) new 9.65 sq.ft. sidewalk plastic sandwich board sign in the ROW with attachable panels; (2) In the front of the Elms, a proposed wall sign to be located under Cricket Hall’s sign; (3) another Bakery wall sign to be attached to stairs at the landing; (4) a valance sign on the canopy over the door. Variances will be needed for the oversized sandwich board and total number of wall signs. Mr. Parris noted that for Sign (1), there are so many sandwich boards in town, couldn’t this one be adjusted to fit within the code. The 4 detachable messages with a little handle bring it over 8 sq.ft., and members discussed ways to bring this under compliance. Mr. Burriss was concerned about visibility by cars leaving the Elms parking lot. He suggested eliminating the word ‘THE’ to allow space for the detachable signs, and Mr. Salvage suggested approving the sign conditionally and allowing the Village Planner to approve final design. Regarding the total number of signs for one business, (2) and (3) are incidental entrance signs and could be combined as one sign and are crucial to direct customers to the Bakery. Mr. Burriss wanted Sign (3) moved farther away from the garbage can. MR. PARRIS MOVED FOR THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FOR APPLICATION #02-144 TO ALLOW 3 VERSUS 1 WALL SIGN AT THE ESTABLISHMENT. IT IS OUR FINDING THAT TWO OF THE SIGNS MAY FALL INTO THE INCIDENTAL SIGNS CATEGORY, BUT WE ARE APPROVING A VARIANCE JUST TO BE SAFE AND LEGAL. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. PARRIS APPLIED THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE TO THE APPLICATION:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The building is unique in that it is of multi levels B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. N/A C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The building was multi-level when he opened his Bakery. D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. That cannot happen. E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. No, it would not.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-144 FOR: (1) THE CANOPY SIGN AS IT EXISTS; (2) THE TWO DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AS PROPOSED WITH ONE TO BE ATTACHED TO THE FACE OF THE BUILDING NEXT TO THE STAIRWELL AND THE OTHER AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STAIRWELL DIRECTING THE CUSTOMERS TO THEIR ENTRANCE; AND (3) FOR A SIDEWALK SIGN AND WE ASK THA THE APPLICANT WORK WITH THE VILLAGE PLANNER TO WORK OUT FINAL PLACEMENT OF THE REMOVABLE PANELS. AS OTHER SIDEWALK SIGNS IN TOWN HAVE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE AREAS, IT IS FINE THAT THE REMOVABLE PANELS HAVE VARYING MESSAGES; THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE REGULATIONS FOR SIDEWALK SIGNS. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, 118 S. Main Street – Temporary Change of Use

 The church wishes to use a portion of the downstairs to temporarily accommodate a consortium of antique and craft dealers (Nest Feathers) from November 16 to December 28. They would use the front door on the south end of the South Main facade. After that time it would revert back to its current institutional use. Village Council approved the temporary change of use last Wednesday, and final approval will be granted by GPC. Ms. Lucier asked whether it would have any signs, and Mr. Parris thought they might need a sandwich board. Temporary signs under 6 sq.ft. are allowed. Temporary contractor signs should also be approved by GPC. Mr. Parris’s objection is that they did not get their sign application in at this time.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-145. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Ned Roberts, 348 E. Maple Street – Renovations

 Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant wishes to rebuild an existing two-story rear addition and move the existing shed. He does not have a demolition permit yet. Mr. Roberts explained that the new gable roof replacing the shed roof will tie in to the existing roof. New siding will be added to the structure. The shed was built without permit and is partially in the ROW of South Granger Street. Mr. Roberts has agreed to move the storage shed to meet the 10’ setback requirement. He wants to open up the front of the house and put in a foundation and rebuild the walls. He will use the dirt from the excavation to level the new shed area. He explained window and door details with corner detail and wrap trim on windows for GPC members. The siding will be cream-colored vinyl siding. The shingles will be three-panel shingles to match the porch. Mr. Burriss asked whether the shed could be painted to match the siding, and Mr. Roberts said eventually he wants to get rid of the shed and build a garage, but in the meantime he could paint it to match. Ms. Lucier noted that with all the projects he has brought to GPC for other applicants, it’s nice for him to have one of his own.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-146 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT THE APPROVAL IS FOR THE DEMOLITION AND ADDITION AS THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED IT; 2) THAT THE ADDITION INCLUDING THE MAIN HOUSE WILL BE SIDED WITH A VINYL CREAM COLOR SIDING; 3) THAT THERE WILL BE CORNERBOARD, WINDOW AND DOOR SURROUND DETAILS; 4) THAT THE ENTIRE ROOF WILL BE SHINGLED TO MATCH THE FRONT PORCH; 5) THAT THE SHED WILL BE MOVED TO THE AGREED UPON LOCATION AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE UNTIL THE END OF JANUARY 2003 TO DO THE RELOCATION OF THE SHED; AND 6) THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO PAINT THE SHED IN A COMPLIMENTARY COLOR TO THE HOUSE OR TO STAIN IT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Helmut & Evelyne Poelzing, 126 West Elm Street – Modification

 Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants wish to apply for a modification to delete the previously approved side garage and extend existing driveway in gravel straight back to the carriage house and install a one-car garage door on it. The woodpile and chicken wire fence will be eliminated. The overhead garage door would start at the window and there would be a small turnaround. They would like to put in a low picket fence around the turnaround and plant flowers around. Also the applicant wants to enclose the existing sunroom on the rear of the house. Mr. Parris asked whether the proposed garage door could blend in with the historic carriage house, and when Mr. Burriss asked whether the entrance could be on the side, the answer was No. He was very concerned about adding a new door to a historic carriage house. It needs to be done sensitively. Ned Roberts is not sure whether applicants would paint the weathered carriage house, but he thought the door could be sectioned and arched. Mr. Burriss wants to see more detail on windows and wants them to put on batten strips on the garage door so it would not show. He would like to see a window in the garage door. He wondered about the appropriateness of a new fence abutting the rustic garage Mr. Salvage thought we should set aside the proposed garage and deal with the rest of the application. They also wish to convert the sunroom and make a four-season living space there. The footprint and roof will not change but it will be enclosed by windows. Ned Roberts, builder, explained that the porch has footers and insulation and they want this area for living space. The siding will match the house. Mr. Roberts explained the details of the double-hung windows with mullions. The front door is single French door. They will use the existing antique door. All windows are 6 over 6. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO FIND MODIFICATIONS TO APPLICATION #01- 028 TO THE HOUSE ARE MINOR MODIFICATIONS. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #01-028M2 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE DONE ON THE CARRIAGE HOUSE AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED FENCE BE SUBMITTED TO THE PC IN A SEPARATE APPLICATION AS THEY WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION; 2) THAT FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE SUNROOM, ALL WINDOWS WILL HAVE A 6 OVER 6 GRILL PATTERN AND THE DOORS WILL BE 15- LIGHT DOORS, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOUSE; AND 3) THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE ADDING AN ANTIQUE FRENCH DOUBLE-DOOR TO THE WEST ELEVATION. THAT DOOR IS NOT SHOWN ON THE APPLICATION.

Finding of Fact:

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A, B, C, D, AND E UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF NOVEMBER 6. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Closing Comments: Mr. Dorman said when people build things they do not have a permit for or modify what they were given permission for, we do have authority to cite them and call them into Mayor’s Court, where it would be determined if a fine was appropriate. They of course would have to come before GPC as well. He will change the application form to make clear such consequences for varying a permit. He would like to put something in the paper to explain what they will be doing. There already is a disclaimer statement, and he will add to it and put it in the approval letter. Joe Hickman said we try to be fair. Seth goes out and spends time working for these things. It’s challenging for us because contractors show up and can only work at a certain time. He wants to hear how GPC feels about this matter. We do need to advertise that enforcement will take place. MR. Salvage said that change is necessary sometimes. After the fact items can be handled administratively as long as they do not violate the code. There are some times when people want to make changes after construction starts, as long as it does not violate code. But we have to be careful about setting precedents. Mr. Parris said it’s not something to require basic approval. Normally the addition of a window is not a great change unless it is a historic building. Mr. Dorman generally just drives by instead of measuring things as long as they look OK. If there are monetary consequences for violating code, it should put a stop to it. Mr. Salvage said the application must say, “I understand that I will be cited and directed to Mayor’s Court for modifications.” Ms. Lucier thought this issue would have the same effect as a traffic citation. Mr. Burriss had three comments: (1) Does something need to go to Mayor’s Court with comment from us about it’s being widely out of acceptance? It could come from the Planner, but there should be some indication of the degree of violation. Mr. Salvage thought Mr. Dorman could present it at Mayor’s Court. (2) When you buy property in German Village, you are given a set of guidelines saying you need approval and this is what you should do. Could a set be given by realtors to buyers? Mr. Salvage said ordinarily they do get a statement like that where there are recorded restrictions. Can such restrictions on record for the historic district be given to all buyers? Mr. Dorman said he was working with Village Council for businesses to tell them who to go to for what, and we could do that here. (3) We need to do a little bit of PR work. “This is done to preserve the wonderful village we have.” It’s a privilege to live here. He does not think some people are aware of inconsistency. In their eyes it may be improvement, but we have to be careful to preserve what is so special. When we deal with issues in noncompliance, the goal is preserving what we have. We must deal with this positively, not punitively. Mr. Salvage wants to put this into the zoning code with possibly a 90-day grace period. Mr. Hickman wants to run this by the Law Director and also Village Council. Mr. Main will take it to V.C. Mr. Main thought a lot of people do not understand the code and are quick to criticize what we do.

Adjournment: 9:35 p.m. Next Meetings: November 25 and December 9

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 10/28/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION October 28, 2002 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: None Citizens Present: Sharon Sellitto, Jonathan Glance Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of October 15, 2002: Page 3, following “THE SIGN; “Mr. Burriss reminded him that we like the light….”

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS MODIFIED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Phillip Markwood Architects, 102 East Broadway – Temporary Contractor’s Sign

 Mr. Dorman said the application is for a temporary sign for the duration of the east addition construction of the church. The Plexiglas sign would be a 10 1/2' sq.ft. white sign with black letters and graphics, 5’ above grade and located on the fence. Mr. Dorman felt they would not need any variances. Mr. Parris questioned (in 1189.01 of the sign code) whether only one sign is allowed per contractors or one sign per site. Mr. Dorman said that although we try to get all contractors onto one sign, he did not think the other sign would be of issue. Technically, he thought Mr. Parris was correct and if the GPC wants to approve the sign, a variance would be necessary. Jonathan Glance said the contractor put up a sign and the architect was not consulted on it. They asked Miles Waggoner if they would put up a single sign next to the contractor sign, but they were not interested, so that was out of the church’s hands. Mr. Salvage said we forced the school district to use one sign and the Presbyterian Church to use one sign. He would have a hard time agreeing to a second sign. Mr. Burriss noted there is a lot of blank space on the approved sign and he thinks they should be combined. The architect sign could be placed within that area nicely. If Kokosing could move their logo up or over in a new sign, there would be plenty of room for the architect’s sign. Mr. Parris asked what we could do to facilitate conversation between the parties. Mr. Glance thought their Plexiglas sign could be added to the other sign. Mr. Parris asked if Mr. Dorman could talk to the interested parties at the church. Mr. Burriss wondered whether each new contractor will want his name on a sign, but Mr. Glance said only Corna Kokosing will be on the sign and not the subcontractors.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-139 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT THE APPLICANT’S SIGN WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE EXISTING GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S SIGN OR A TOTALLY NEW SIGN, THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF WHICH WILL NOT INCREASE; AND 2) THAT ALL THE INTERESTED PARTIES WILL GET FINAL APPROVAL OF THE GRAPHICS AND LAYOUT FROM THE VILLAGE PLANNER. THE PLANNING COMMISSION URGES ALL THREE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS TO BE COOPERATIVE IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS AND CONFORMING TO OUR SIGN CODE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street – Fence Modification

Mr. Dorman said this is the second modification to a fence approved in 2000. The first modification was approved in June last year to modify the approval to put up a 35’x79’ fence enclosure. The fence was different from the one originally approved. It went up with bigger dimensions than what we approved. Mr. Dorman asked her to come back for approval for what was actually put up in the yard. Ms. Sellitto said she and the contractor had discussed this, but then when she returned from out of town, he had gone the additional distance with the posts and she proceeded to attach the pickets without a modification.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THIS IS A MINOR MODIFICATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE A MINOR MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION #00-088 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Markwood) AND ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Sellitto), AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF OCTOBER 25. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Closing Comments: 

Ms. Lucier: Tonight’s meeting reminded me of an issue we have talked about before, because it happens so often, and that is people go ahead and do whatever and then come back to us for an approval after the fact. I wonder if we could propose something to the Council or if it’s even necessary to do it that way; that there be some penalty for those who do this.

Mr. Parris: It puts us in a position; I didn’t say much because it’s like what am I supposed to do, it’s already built; what am I going to do, tell them to take it down?

Mr. Dorman: If something comes to you after it’s built you have to analyze it based on the code. If you don’t find it meets the standards of the code, we absolutely have the authority to tell them to take it down.

Mr. Parris: I think the reason that so many of these are coming to us is because someone is actually going out there now and looking at what’s being built; however this is frustrating for us because its already built.

Mr. Dorman: Those who do this are violating the zoning code by violating their permit, so I could cite them.

Ms. Lucier: I would feel good if you did that.

Mr. Salvage: If you cite them what does that do?

Mr. Dorman: It would send them to Mayor’s Court, where they would go in front of the Mayor or Magistrate and likely be fined.

Mr. Salvage: That’s a good idea, but I would like to put something on the application that states that applicants who modify approved plans without proper approvals will be issued a citation. I would ask that Seth draft something and also run it by the Law Director as soon as possible.

Adjournment: 7:55 p.m. Next Meetings: November 13 and November 25

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 10/15/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION October 15, 2002 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Carl Wilkenfeld Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Nick & Melanie Schott, Jerry Martin, Willis Troy, Tom Fuller, Carolyn Carter, Gill Miller, Jeff McInturf, Leon Habegger, Ned Roberts, Barb Hammond, Jim Siegel, Paul Swenson Citizens’ Comments: None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of September 9 and September 23, 2002: Sept. 9, Page 3, Line 5, change “pond” to lot.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 9TH MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 23RD MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

New Day Spa, 1287 Cherry Valley Road – Sign Relocation/ Modification

 Mr. Dorman said the application is to relocate the existing 16 sq.ft. free-standing sign at the edge of the pavement to a north/south orientation, 24’ from the pavement. The same sign will be used but the opposite side will also have text and graphics to match the existing side. Carolyn Carter said people cannot find their business and reorienting it will make the business easier to find. It will be externally lit on both sides and will be landscaped.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-132 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Nick & Melanie Schott, 660 West Broadway – Fence in TCOD

Mr. Dorman said half of the proposed fence is in the TCOD and the exact property line was uncertain. The 6’ tall wooden fence would have beveled post caps and pickets would be dog-eared with no spaces between them. Mr. Schott said he has talked with neighbor Mr. Patterson and they will meet and review the line. There had been a fence survey done earlier. There are six trees with big root systems, and the applicant wanted to put the fence where it will go best. The property line is 1’ to the right of the driveway. He explained on the drawing exactly where the fence would go, starting at the second tree and running back 80’ but will not return to the house. The fence is for privacy and safety for the children. Mr. Burriss noted the bottom of the fence is 6” from the ground and he wondered whether that was enough room for lawnmowers, etc. The applicant may raise it if he wishes. Mr. Salvage suggested the applicant put some stakes in the ground and invite the Village Planner to view and accept the location. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-135 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT WILL AGREE UPON THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE FENCE WITH THE NEIGHBOR AND REVIEW IT WITH THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR FINAL APPORVAL. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Village Brewing Company, 128 East Broadway – Lot Split

Mr. Dorman said the lot split requested is for a portion of east and west neighbors’ lots to accommodate the recently approved kitchen addition. Neighbors have submitted letters of agreement with the split and it meets applicable code requirements. Jerry Martin said the surveyor would like to see this approved and the footers set before approving legal description because he is afraid that if it is a foot against the neighbor’s property, there may be trouble.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-061 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Gill Miller, 213 North Granger Street – Fireplace

 Mr. Dorman said the applicant wishes to add a 6.94 sq.ft. wood lap siding fireplace/chimney at the rear of the property. The protrusion into the yard would be 1.8 x 4.2’. Ned Roberts added construction details for the box chimney.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-136 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road – Site Plan Modification

 Mr. Dorman said this modification to the previously submitted plan is in order to widen the entrance to increase safety. They are requesting 4 light fixtures, including one to light the entrance sign. Neighbor Willis Troy had a concern with lighting escaping onto his property, and Mr. Salvage explained our lighting requirements and said the lights will not bleed out. Willis Troy was also concerned about the kids playing so close to his yard and “missiles” flying into his yard. With the driveway expansion and lessening of the area, he does not want kids running into his expensive shrubs. Leon Habegger from the school said they will work together to do everything they can to ease the situation. Paul Swenson asked about the length of time the lights would be on and was told until 11 p.m. Mr. Parris requested that the supplier of lights provides the best product available and sets them up properly so they do what they are supposed to do.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION REQUESTED BY APPLICATION #02-119, AS MODIFIED BY A PREVIOUS MOTION THAT TH E APPLICATION WILL NOT ENCOMPASS ANY AREA OUTSIDE OF THE FRONT PARKING AREA. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road – Freestanding Sign The church wishes to install a new 32 sq.ft. externally lit sign at the front entrance, mounted in stone with three lines of changeable copy. Variances are required for (1) 4 colors vs. 3 allowed in code, (2) changeable copy, which is not allowed in code, and (3) size of sign. Jeff McInturf showed the modified changeable copy sign with reduced size (from 40 to 32 sq.ft.), 6’ high, with 4 colors, mounted in red brick. The logo will be eliminated and the red lettering will be black. He said the lights would be on all night. The sign would be 40’ from the road, and the frontage is about 450’. Caps atop the wall are flat. They would no longer need their sidewalk signs. 

THE SIGN: Mr. Burriss reminded him that we like the light source to be landscaped so that the fixture cannot be seen Mr. Salvage believes the sign is appropriate for the intended use because: (1) it’s a dual-use facility and (2) the size of the facility is big and the code is really designed for smaller places. He wondered whether we could look at this as just a same size replacement where variances were previously granted. He is more comfortable saying the size has been previously granted, Mr. Dorman was more comfortable with a new variance because there is a new code in place and it’s a new sign. Members discussed other large signs and other church signs. Members wanted a permanent panel with the name of the school in 6” letters. The 32 sq.ft. sign will be 4 colors, black, white, green, and beige. The logo is gone. THE CHANGEABLE COPY: Jeff McInturf said that by looking at the total size of the sign, this is proportionate to other changeable signs. He does not think the church will reduce the size of the changeable copy area. Mr. Burriss said the primary concern of the sign was to inform people where the school and church are located; therefore why wouldn’t it make more sense to have the words larger and the changeable copy small? Mr. McInturf said they removed “Home of” to make it larger. Mr. Salvage suggested putting the names of the school at the top of the changeable copy. He would prefer the red lettering bigger and the changeable copy smaller. Mr. McInturf is willing to go to 5” letters. Mr. Burriss wanted them to find a more slender font for the changeable copy. Mr. Salvage suggested that Mr. Dorman and Mr. Burriss make final decision on lettering choice. There will be 3 lines of changeable copy. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES FOR THIS PROPOSAL FROM THE MAXIMUM SIZE, NUMBER OF COLORS AND NO CHANGEABLE COPY STANDARDS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (1) THIS IS A LARGE FACILITY OF APPROXIMATELY 30,000 SQUARE FEET ON A LARGE PROPERTY UNUSUALLY ZONED; (2) THERE ARE TWO USES FOR THIS FACILITY BOTH A CHURCH AND K-12 SCHOOL (WITH A 200+ STUDENT ENROLLMENT; AND (3) THERE ARE OTHER INSTITUTIONS THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE BOTH CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS THAT HAVE SIGNS OF SIMILAR OR LARGER SIZES, HAVE CHANGEABLE COPY AND SOME ARE EVEN INTERNALLY LIT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-120 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE MONUMENT HOLDING THE SIGN IS TO BE RED BRICK WITH TINTED MORTAR TO MATCH THE BUILDING; (2) THAT VEGETATION BE PLANTED AROUND THE ENTIRE SIGN; (3) THAT THE APPLICANT CONSULT MR. BURRISS AND THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR FINAL APPORVAL OF THE FOLLOWING: (A) THE SEMI-PERMANENT PANEL TO HIGHLIGHT THE GRANVILLE CHRISTIAN ACADEMY AND SONSHINE SCHOOL, AND (B) THE COLOR, FONT AND SIZE OF THE CHANGEABLE COPY; AND (4) THAT THE CROSS LOGO BE REMOVED FROM THE DESIGN. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Barb Hammond, 123 East Broadway – Awning over Rear Door

Mr. Dorman introduced the application to modify the existing sign to permit a black awning with copper lettering, over the rear door to match the one in the front. Only one awning is allowed. There can be two awnings but not two signs. Ms. Hammond said it’s a shed type awning to protect people from the rain at the door with the little window. The name is on the 6” drop and has the same information as the one in the front. MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR THE SECOND CANOPY SIGN FOR THE REASON THAT INCORPORATING THE SIGN ON THE CANOPY WOULD BE BETTER AND MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN A SEPARATE SIGN OVER OR AROUND THE DOOR WHICH WOULD BE ALLOWED AND BECAUSE IT PROVIDES FOR A CONSISTENCY OF THE PRESENTATION OF GRAPHICS WHICH HAS BEEN ONE OF OUR GOALS, AND FURTHERMORE GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AFFECT THE HELATH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PERSONS LIVING AND WORKING IN THE AREA. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-124M WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT MATCHES THE GRAPHICS ON THE FRONT CANOPY FOR THIS PROPOSED CANOPY SIGN. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Village of Granville – Light Fixtures at Opera House Park

 Jim Siegel from the Tree and Landscape Commission is requesting some lighting for the park. He explained the walkway system and said it is very dark and they propose placing lamp posts in three spots. Any light is blocked by the trees. He showed the proposed 75-watt styles with outlets and said others may tap into the electric unit for special occasions. Mr. Burriss encouraged him to match the lights on Broadway and Mr. Siegel said they do not want a street lamp, they want a park lightwith 7 ½’ post and 1 ½’ for the light. Mr. Burriss would like to explore the opportunity to go with lights in the same family that are downtown. Having an outlet is great, but who is to pay for it and who would own the meter? He suggested locking the outlets. Mr. Siegel said the Tree and Landscape Commission would pay for the fixtures if the Village would pay for the lighting. The light will not flood out. Mr. Salvage does not want them to look at the dollars but wants attractive lights.

Finding of Fact:

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A,B,C, AND D UNDER NEW BUSINESS (New Day, Schott, Brews, Miller) AND ITEMS A,B, AND C UNDER OLD BUSINESS Spring Hills, Hammond), AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF OCTOBER 11. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9:35 p.m. Next Meetings: October 28 and November 12

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 9/23/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 2002 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: None Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Bob Kent, Curt Shonk, Jeff McInturf, Jeff Oster Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of August 12, 2002: Minutes were postponed until the next meeting.

New Business:

Bryn Du Woods, Phase V – Final Plat

 After briefly describing the history of the subdivision, Mr. Dorman said tonight’s application is for Phase V, 25 ½-acres, with lots 0.49 to l.2-acres. The road is a northern extension of Glyn Tawel ending in a cul-de- sac. He summarized the circulated memo reporting on Mark Zarbaugh’s (Service Director) comments on Phase V. The walkways, connectors, and paving details were described and agreed upon. Bob Kent said this is not quite the final phase, since there are 5 lots left. Engineers have been looking at the plans and there are no changes from the PUD approval. He added that the retention pond will be reconstructed somewhat, raising the rim so it can hold more water.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-130 FOR FINAL PLAT OF BRYN DU WOODS PHASE V, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: 1) THE PLAT SHOULD INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF A SIDEWALK TO CONNECT THE GREENWAY WALKING PATHS AND THE STRIPING TO CONNECT TEHM AS OUTLINED IN THE MEMO PROVIDED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER; AND 2) THAT FINAL ENGINEERING DETAILS BE WORKED OUT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND VILLAGE’S ENGINEERS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jeff Oster, 1179 Cherry Valley Road –Change of Use/ Development Plan

Mr. Dorman said the applicant has recently purchased the building next door to his store, and he is looking for approval to convert this former residence into a medical office. There will be a handicapped entrance ramp and 11 new parking spaces in the lot behind the house. He said this is a change of use and a development plan. As a PCD, this will be decided upon as a recommendation to Village Council. Jeff Oster added that these plans reflect what was discussed at the work session. They intend to widen his driveway and connect the two driveways. There will be plantings on the south side. The air conditioner will be in the back. He thought there would be 25-30 patients per day and two full-time staff people. Hours of operation will be 8:30 to 6 p.m., and there will be mercury oxide lamp for the parking lot. Mr. Burriss asked about the sign and was told there should be a relationship with the two signs. The applicant will submit sign application later. Mr. Wilkenfeld was told, in answer to his question, that the dumpster will be an ordinary household can. Mr. Parris stated they are not doing much outside the building, but the doors should open out, and wants the applicant to follow the codes. If it becomes necessary to modify the exterior of the building to build it up to acceptable codes, would he have to bring those modifications back here? Mr. Salvage thought we could give him the ability to change the building for accessibility issues. Ms. Lucier asked about the concrete in the front and Mr. Oster said this is for access to the garage, not parking, and a portion will be removed and seeded. She asked about sidewalks and it was decided there would be none. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED FOR A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO COUNCIL FOR APPLICATION #02-128 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT THE APPLICANT’S PLANS WILL BE MODIFIED TO CLOSE THE BREEZEWAY USING A SIDING MATERIAL THAT MATCHES THE EXISTING STRUCTURE; 2) THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO MODIFY ANY EXISTING DOORS TO MEET FIRE AND EGRESS CODE IF NECESSARY; 3) THAT THE APPLICANT WILL REVIEW ANY PARKING LOT LIGHTING WITH THE VILLAGE PLANNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION; 4) THAT THE ISSUE OF WATER RETENTION/ DETENTION RESULTING FROM THE INSTALLATION OF AN ASPHALT PARKING LOT BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE ENGINEER’ 5) THAT ANY AIR CONDITIONER SHOULD BE PLACED BEHIND THE BUILDING AND BE SCREENED; AND 6) THAT THE APPLCIANT WILL SUBMIT A DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR APPROVAL BY THE TREE & LANDSCAPE COMMISSION. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road – Site Plan Modifications

Jeff McInturf appreciated the opportunity to come back to answer questions arising at the last meeting. He and Mr. Dorman talked with their engineer as well as the Village engineer to determine what they want to see on parking in the floodplain. He described the traffic flow problems at the church and why they need to revise their parking arrangements and eliminate cross traffic. Mr. Dorman showed the 1991 preliminary approved plan for Phase I. In 1995 the school building was approved, and in 1997 the Village Planner and Joe Hickman approved the excavation and grading. GPC did not get involved. Three variances would be required: size of sign, changeable copy sign, and more than three colors. Mr. McInturf said they have a net loss of several spaces to reconfigure. They want to add traffic islands and striping. The only lighting they have is insufficient and they are trying to add 4 more lights with colonial lampposts, which will go off at 11 p.m. One existing light will remain where it is; the other will be moved to allow space for the parking lot. He described their exact locations MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT APPLICATION #02-119 IS A MINOR MODIFICATION WITHOUT THE REAR PARKING LOT. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-119. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Parris was concerned about public disclosure, but neighbors need not be notified for a work session. He wants to be sure this follows protocol. There was considerable discussion about the appropriateness of changeable signs and whether the applicant could adjust the plans to accommodate the code, which specifies no changeable copy signs. Mr. Parris thought this should be examined with an eye to signs in other institutional districts. Ms. Lucier said it’s a mistake to have a sign of this size with changeable copy. She thought sandwich boards could advertise special events. Mr. McInturf did not like the idea of sandwich boards, preferring a more aesthetic sign. He thought they could reduce the sign to three colors. Sometimes the school hosts events by outside entities because they have so much space. The code, according to Mr. Salvage, cites “per zoned lot” for determining signs, and there are two uses on this lot. Mr. Wilkenfeld wondered why the church needed to advertise events which could be learned about internally, and he was told that drivers from all over the county see the sign and participate in activities and sports. Ms. Lucier thought a sign with just the name of the church and school should be sufficient. A sign placed closer to the building might be more acceptable, as at the Welsh Hills School, and Mr. Burriss thought the changeable copy part could be scaled down to make it more subtle. Mr. McInturf said they could probably scale it down somewhat. It was decided that the sign design would be reworked before the next meeting, making it smaller, having only three colors. Mr. Main suggested getting advice on readability and spelling from the sign maker.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2002. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Comments: Regarding SuperAmerica at Village Council last evening, Mr. Salvage reported that there was a discussion about the fact that the traffic engineer told Village Council something other than what he told us. Also, it is important when writing to Village Council that GPC members get a copy. For smooth functioning of the board it is necessary to respect one another and maintain open communications.

Adjournment: 9:40 P.M. Next Meetings: October 15, and 28, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 9/9/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2002 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: Jack Burriss, Carl Wilkenfeld Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Dawn Powell, Barbara Hammond, Ted Handel, Robert Kshywonis, Steve Mershon, Jim Crates, Jeff McInturf, Leon Habegger, Ned Roberts, Walt Denny, Nadine Robson, Dick Hedge, Neal & Sue Hartfield, Brenda Heisey, Roger Kessler, Sue Zenko

Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of August 12, 2002: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Steve Mershon, 411 East College Street - Fence Mr. Dorman said the applicant requests a 42” decorative wrought iron fence, 10’ from the sidewalk at the vacant lot next door to his house. There will be no gate.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-111 AS SUBMITTED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dorothy & Deloris Collins, 347 East Maple Street – Carport Enclosure

Mr. Dorman said they propose to enclose the carport and add two double-hung windows and a pedestrian door. It will match the existing structure as closely as possible. It is certain to enhance the appearance of the house. Ned Roberts the enclosure will make the room airtight and part of the building. This is for one side only; the other two sides are already enclosed. The walls will be unfinished stud walls.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-112 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE SIDING AND WINDOWS MATCH THE EXISTING DWELLING AND THAT THE COLOR IS THE SAME. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dawn Powell, 113 North Prospect Street – Sign Redesign

 Mr. Dorman said the new owner of Pippin Hill is requesting approval of a change for the projecting sign already in place. Ms. Powell said the only change is the graphics; the location and size will remain the same. She said they also wish to apply for a sidewalk sign with the same design on it.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-113 WITH THE ADDITION THAT THE IMAGE ON THE PROJECTING SIGN BE ALSO INCLUDED ON THE SIDEWALK SIGN. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mindy and Bob Kshywonis, 232 North Granger Street – Garden Shed

 Mr. Dorman said the application is to put in an 8’x12’ garden shed near the end of the property in a planting bed approximately 8’ from property line. This will require variance approval for side yard setback. It will not be visible from the street. Mr. Kshywonis stated that they can’t move it farther from the setback minimum because of the lay of the land and the grade. The back of the shed would be 8’ from a 9’ tall concrete wall and the other side of the wall is the school. He asked whether he could build a moveable shed, and the answer was yes, but it is still a structure and over 3’ tall so will need approval. 

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-117 WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO BZBA TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James Crates, 339 East Maple Street - Fence

 The applicant wishes to replace the existing fence with a 50” picket fence and Nantucket Arbor. Mr. Crates said this is his third fence application. This one will be behind the front porch. The back yard will not be changed, only the curbside. They will be in Nantucket and will check around to see how the fence should look. The standard is 4” or 6” white pickets, thicker than traditional 1”x6” pickets. The neighbor agrees with the proposed fence. Mr. Parris asked whether he would get the Village Planner’s approval for the color selected. MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-118 WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE APPLICANT CHECK WITH THE PLANNER BEFORE HE APPLIES THE FINAL COLOR. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road – Site Plan Modifications

 Mr. Dorman said the applicants wish to (1) widen the entrance to improve traffic flow from the main road for safety reasons; (2) grade and extend rear gravel parking area and pave with asphalt to double amount of parking area and reduce erosion; and (3) add lighting. Fourteen parking spaces will be moved a little farther east. A landscape plan would be applied for later. Mr. Parris noted the PUD has already been approved and wondered if it is exactly what was proposed several years ago. We are to consider a considerable increase in parking areas. Normally under a PUD in phases one has to go with a plat. Mr. Dorman said there was an overall development plan approved, and he will attempt to locate it. Mr. Salvage said we are taking a two-acre parcel and making it impervious, so there are drainage issues. He is not sure we have the proper information to act on this tonight. This is a PUD, which means there are certain criteria we have to approve before we recommend this to Village Council. Jeff McInturf thought the original PUD just called for “future parking.” In order to reduce erosion, they want to grade around the lot this fall in preparation for paving later on. They want to move the soccer field to the east. The traffic flow would be much safer with the improvements they are applying for and school busses could move around easier. If they added 5’ on the side, they could have a double exit in the front. Mr. McInturf thought this could be considered a minor modification, but the Commission does not know what it would be a modification for without seeing the original plat. Since we cannot add parking in the front, we have to put it in the rear, but we will have to lose a few spaces. This probably should be institutional zoning, not a PUD. Mr. Parris thought it would not be a problem as long as the applicants did not expand the borders of the parking lot, but this should probably be examined all at once, not piecemeal with the traffic flow and lighting separate. Mr. Salvage wanted the applicants to schedule a work session, bringing in the original site plan with proposed amendments, and he asked Mr. Dorman to search for the plan. A drainage study needs to be done. Ms. Lucier does not feel comfortable with the new lighting, and Mr. McInturf said a lot of people walk around there at night and the lighting is insufficient. They want to add four lights and move the one in place now. Currently they have two double lights. Ms. Lucier said tripling the lighting does not seem to be minor. Mr. Dorman said on the site they are allowed up to 25 foot candles, and the amount of existing light is minimal. Having the applicants’ agreement:

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-119 PENDING THE RECEIPT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road – Freestanding Sign

 Mr. Dorman said they also want a new 8’x5’ externally lit sign in a stone wall with a fixed message at the top and changeable area beneath. The maximum is 18 sq.ft. requiring a variance. The sign would be 4 colors, which would require a variance from the maximum of 3. Although changeable signs are OK in the Village Square District, such a sign in PUD would require variance here. Mr. Parris said churches need to post upcoming events. Church signs downtown are bigger than the code allows, but the Village Square would allow changeable signs. Mr. Main stated that the new sign code was modified to adjust to the size of the signs downtown. Ms. Lucier thinks a changeable sign would be a mistake and would prefer 3 colors to 4 colors. She looked at church signs and no changeable copy signs were in the outlying churches and she thinks it’s a mistake to install one here. She would vote to table the application. Mr. McInturf said the reason for changeable copy is for the church and school to post all kinds of events, and they need a bigger sign since cars drive past faster than in the Village. Mr. Salvage said only three colors are allowed, and they are encouraged to go from 4 colors to 3. He thinks the size and the changeable sign is appropriate here, but we don’t have enough votes to pass this tonight.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-120. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Neal and Sue Hartfield, 324 East Elm Street – Exterior Modifications

The applicants wish to replace the side door with a French door and replace several windows on the south with double- hung windows. Mr. Hartfield provided additional detail on the windows and door. MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-121 AS SUBMITTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dan Bellman, 310 Summit Street – Air Conditioner

Mr. Bellman wishes to put the air conditioner in the rear. There is an existing bush which could be used for screening. Since it is less than 10’ from the property line, ordinarily it would need a variance, but structures under 3’ are excluded. He talked to his neighbor and he had no objections. He would like the application in terms of screening with the option to replace the bush. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-122 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT (1) THE EXISTING SHRUBS WILL SERVE AS SCREENING FOR THE AIR CONDITIONER. IF SCREENING IS CHANGED, THE APPLICANT WILL CONSULT WITH THE PLANNER. (2) THE UNIT WILL BE 3’ HIGH OR LESS. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Barbara Hammond, 123 East Broadway – Exterior Modifications

 Ms. Hammond is moving her furniture store into the old Granville Electric and wishes to replace the two front doors with an ADA compliant double-door entrance. She wants to remove the existing picture windows and replace with aluminum storefront framing. Transoms will be darkened to block the view of the canopy framework.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-123 AS SUBMITTED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Barbara Hammond, 123 East Broadway – Awning

 Ms. Hammond also wishes to replace the awning with a black and copper one, 35’ long and 9.3’ tall with a valance and sign on the extended awning. The awning is to be black and the sign (3.5 sq.ft.) in copper. It would be taller than the canopy next door. Ted Handel explained more details to the group. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-124 AS SUBMITTED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Brenda Heisey, 1007 Newark-Granville Road – Fence

 Ms. Heisey wishes to erect a 4’ wrought iron fence, between the shed and primary structure. There will be 70’ of fencing and two gates

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-125 AS SUBMITTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Judy Guenther, 138 East Broadway – Awning/ Sidewalk Sign

 The proposal is to redesign the awning with new lettering on the scalloped drop and to put out a sidewalk sign. The sandwich board will have the name Hare Hollow at the top with cork section in the middle and a dry erase section at bottom. Roger Kessler, sign maker, said just the lettering will change, not the awning. It will be the same size and the same color. Originally planned for 2.5’x4’, the sandwich board size can be reduced to 2’x4’.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-126 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK SIGN MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENT OF 2’X4’ MAXIMUM. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: 

Granville Public Library - Addition

 Jack Hedge, Architect, and Library Board members wished to update the GPC on their plans. They have 13,000 sq.ft. now and wish to increase to 23,000 sq.ft. by expanding to the rear. To improve security they want to open up the old front door and have meeting rooms just inside with a lockable door dividing meeting space from library space in order to enable groups to meet after closing hours. The existing entry door will remain. A grand staircase is envisioned, covering all three floors. The structure will be 7’ from the property line. The children’s section will be in the basement looking out into a sunken garden The first floor would have audio-visual materials, computers, magazines; the upper level would have reference and teenage books. Mr. Hedge showed slides of the exterior elevations. Parking and deliveries will be in the rear, where the Pyle house is now and a 6’ wall will be built at the North Prospect Street entrance. Fencing will be installed as buffers on the south side and on the north to screen the post office. They tried to limit the massing by adding a hip roof and make it the same pitch as original building. Little jutting-out sections will reduce massing. Air conditioning units will be on the roof. They will remove stained glass windows and add skylights. Ms. Lucier regretted their having to remove two houses. She hates to give up houses for parking lots. She recommended that the group return when Jack Burris can be present. Walt Denny wanted to be sure the Granville Fellowship latitude to move the building or move out of the building. They have given the Fellowship until September 1, 2002, to convey whether or not it is viable for them to pursue that. The library has no plans for the Pyle House. It will be either razed or sold and moved. If it does not sell, the library will ask for demolition again. Mr. Parris wondered whether it wouldn’t be better to have the service entrance on the west to ease delivery of books. Mr. Salvage summed up: (1) You should make the structure as attractive as possible. (2) He does not have a problem with the parking plan. (3) Make good use of the Sinnett House. Mr. Parris said they might have to break up the back roof massing more. The original structure is such a wonderful building; he thinks they should continue some of the old details into the new section. The old building should remain distinct. He would be willing to violate setbacks for a beautiful building. 

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A,B,C,D,E,H,I,J,K,L,M UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2002. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9:47 P.M. Next Meetings: September 23, and October 14, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 8/12/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2002 Minutes

Members Present: Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: Barb Lucier, Jack Burriss Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: David Neel, Susan and Douglas Rockwell, Laura Andujar Citizens’ Comments: None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of July 8, 2002: On Page 9, Line 11, after “per day and was told,” add by the representative from Speedway, at the end of the paragraph, and add an end quote.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of July 22, 2002: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Susan and Charles Rockwell, 129 West Broadway – Utility Shed

 Mr. Dorman said the application is to install an 8’x 8’ x 7’ vinyl utility shed with a wood base, behind the garage and at least 10’ from the west property line. Mr. Rockwell said it will be painted white, and it will not be visible from the street.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-103 AS SUBMITTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

William Zink and Mary Van Paepechem, 425 Burg Street – Lot Split

Mr. Dorman said the applicants propose to split 0.007 of an acre at the rear of the property so the Goldblatts at 419 Burg Street could have a more functional lot. No variances would be required, and a survey has been completed. David Neel said the Goldblatts acquired another portion of this lot several years ago when another person owned it. Because of the steep terrain, it’s an unbuildable strip of land.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-108 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

 Old Business:

The Broadway Deli, 126 East Broadway – Valance

 Mr. Dorman said last year the applicant came in and received approval to paint the building and remove the awning over the first floor window, as well as install small awnings over each second story window. Tonight the applicant is requesting a modification to install a valance on the outside of the first floor window. The valance would be similar to the awnings on the second story with the same red and white stripe and scallop pattern. The applicant was not present tonight. Mr. Salvage remembered that the Planning Commission had suggested at the first hearing that the applicant might want an awning over that window, but at the time they did not want it. Mr. Salvage sees no problem with this request.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THIS IS A MINOR MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION #01-123. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION #01-123 AS PRESENTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Sessions:

Village of Granville - Village Hall Improvements

 Mr. Dorman reviewed that in 1999 or 2000 the Village came through with improvements to Village Hall in two phases. Now both permits have expired and are void. Joe Hickman and Mr. Dorman tried to recreate a list of things to be done, some of which require Planning Commission approval and others do not. Tonight Laura Andujar, Architect, will talk about some of the things we are looking at. They were considering a fence on the roof to screen the mechanicals. Ms. Andujar showed the Commission the plans to date, noting they will improve the drainage system. They are seeking a railing to give a new look to the entrance, which would be subject to Planning Commission approval. Mr. Burriss had asked previously whether the awning should be moved up above the transom. There will be a new entrance door and coach lights to either side of the entrance. Mr. Parris thought they might order sidelights and transom to match the door and it would go a long way to warming that up. They could put in a whole new unit with wood frame. They make composite frames now. They might continue the transom line across and divide it up evenly between the windows. If the opening were moved in a little bit, there would be room for some nice trim inside and out. It might be important to see how wide the door must be to accommodate wheelchairs. The front door is the top priority, and then they will consider changing the window appearance. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether the rail would be on both sides of the ramp and was told yes. Mr. Parris thought they could put in a simple rail on the back and a more attractive one on the front. Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Rockwell, Zink) AND ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (The Broadway Deli), AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF AUGUST 9, 2002. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:05 P.M. Next Meetings: September 9, 2002. AUGUST 26 MEETING IS CANCELLED.

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 7/22/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22 2002 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Matt McGowan (substituting for Richard Main), Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: Barb Lucier Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Jim Hartzler, Maxine Montgomery, Jonathan WocHer, Connie Westbrook, Jerry Gray, Jeff Oster, Miles Waggoner, John Stephens, Jeffrey L. Brown, Rose Wingert, Margaret Clayton, Judy Duncan, Jerry Griffin, Judith Thomas Citizens’ Comments: None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of July 8, 2002: Postponed until the next meeting

New Business:

Jim Hartzler, 203 North Plum Street – Remove (2) Non- Historic Windows

 Mr. Dorman said the application is to remove two small horizontal windows installed in the 50s or 60s. Mr. Hartzler apologized for trying to put this through as an amendment to his previous application. The two windows of concern have no historical value, and he wants to restore the appearance to its former time period. They will restore siding to match as closely as possible. Mr. Parris reminded him that in the future if you have several things to do on the house, we would not have a problem with putting them in as a package. But this improvement had nothing to do with the retaining wall. Mr. Hartzler said he appreciated that, and as he gets into renovating things he will be mindful of that.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-097 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Corna Kokosing, 102 East Broadway – Temporary Contractor’s Signs.

 Mr. Dorman said the contractors have put up two 32 square feet signs about 15’ from Broadway at the Methodist Church. This will require variances for (1) number of signs, (2) size of signs; Mr. Parris thought we could justify a variance based on other projects around town; and (3) location in relation to the ROW; the code says, “unless there is no land between façade and ROW.” Jerry Gray, Superintendent, did not know there were regulations about temporary signs when they installed them on the fence around the project. The signs would be in place during the construction, which will last 9-10 months. Mr. Salvage asked whether they could live with one sign and the answer was Yes. Mr. Gray would keep the one at the main entrance to the church. Mr. Parris applied the criteria to the requested variances for size and location:

A.That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. N/A B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. We have granted larger signs for other construction projects in institutional districts. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. N/A D.That the granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. It’s just the opposite. If we do not grant the variance, we would be denying them what others have. E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the of persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. No, it would not.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR ONE SIGN BASED ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE (1147.03), SPECIFICALLY (B), (D), AND (E) ABOVE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-100 AS AMENDED TO APPROVE ONE SIGN LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THE BARRICADE. MR.BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Centenary Methodist Church, 102 East Broadway –Temporary Sign

During renovation church services will need to be at a different location and the sign will direct worshippers to Burke Hall. The sign is 34.5 square feet versus code maximum of 12 square feet. Miles Waggoner expressed apologies for putting up the sign without approval. They had an interest in installing the sign to advise the public of where they are worshipping. This temporary sign will be in place until September 8th. Mr. Parris thought it was big and unfortunately it went up before approval at which time it could have been scaled down. But based on the short time of service, he is not too worried about it. To answer a question from Mr. Burris, Mr. Waggoner thought another sign would not be necessary in the future. Mr. Wilkenfeld thought if the sign were not already up, he would feel differently; however. it is not garish, it is low key, it’s for an institution of the Village, and we have granted other such signs. This would not set a precedent. Because of 1189.09, Mr. Salvage did not think a variance is required.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-101 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Speedway/SuperAmerica, SR 16 at Cherry Valley Road – Proposed Gas Station

 Mr. Dorman introduced the continuation of discussion by saying the applicant has submitted a new site plan showing changes to Cherry Valley Road (CVR) and a drawing showing the proposed screening for outdoor storage. Jonathan Wocher said there would be a wall extending north of dumpster. This would not require a variance. The site plan now shows a right turn extending the full length of CVR to SuperAmerica (SA) Way. The ROW dedication provides a 6-lane potential. Mr. Burriss stated that he would hate to plant a row of trees for safety and get them going and then remove them. Mr. Wocher does not want to do that either. Mr. Burriss asked how high the enclosure around the dumpster was and was told it it would be above the ice machine. 

Build-to Line. This is OK

Dedicated Space. All lots except 1,2, and 3, and SA Way will be dedicated. Mr. Salvage said the old map shows 17 acres, and this is about 12 acres of dedicated land for the Licking Land Trust or to the Village. Speedway was not sure of the total acreage of their holdings but assured everything beyond the 3 lots and the road would be dedicated for open space.

Outdoor Storage. Mr. Wilkenfeld reminded the group that outdoor storage and display of merchandise in sidewalks or plaza areas shall be prohibited. We don’t have authority to approve ice machines and other things. Mr. Parris reminded the group that the IGA has 4 coke machines outside. If we decide they can’t have outdoor storage, other businesses in town will be impacted. If we are to have it at all, Mr. Burriss wants it screened. He would be in favor of screening and no other merchandise added. The minute soda pop shows up, there would be a problem. Ice could be stored inside, but propane should be outside. Mr. Dorman reminded the group that under B, 1-8 in Section C these are concerns. Table B is guidelines; 1-8 are considerations. Screening is required.

Elevation. Mr. Burriss asked about the correct position and was told the one presented tonight was the accurate one. Front elevation will be reversed. There are no doors on the sides. Jeff Brown asked about the 1 ½ story requirement and 1 story was agreed on.

Hours of Operation. Consensus agreed to 18 hours as the code specifies. Jeff Brown said try to take into consideration the location, not downtown but along a highway with a lot of traffic 24 hours a day. With everything they are putting into this site, they need those additional hours to pay for the site.

Right Out lane. Mr. Wocher explained the 24-hour traffic count taken on October 17, 2001, on the last page of the study. Right out will be eliminated.

Number of Pumps. Mr. Wilkenfeld was curious that they went from 10 to 12 pumps and the building space went from 2,000 to 3,800 square feet, and Mr. Wocher said every 5-6 years they update their standard site and building based on demand, and a lot of the planning depends on lot size. 

Other Two Lots. Mr. Wocher does not know who will use the 2 lots, but typically they have been restaurants and hotels. Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that a drive-through generates more traffic than a sit-down. Mr. Wocher said anyone would have to go through you for approval. A certain amount of additional ROW on CVR must be dedicated for expansion. Any landscaping trees along CVR would be located such that future expansion of CVR to 6 lanes would not require relocation of the trees and would not be likely to harm them. The applicant will work out final details with the Tree & Landscape Commission.

Signage. Mr. Wocher wanted assurance that the 32’ freestanding sign will be externally lit, and the S sign above the door will be internally lit. Mr. Dorman said the code specifies 18 square feet, but the freestanding sign is 32 square feet. Jeff Brown said the freestanding sign is the same as Certified’s, and Matt McGowan said Bob Evans took one sign down. Mr. Wocher stated because of the location of the sign and the ROW, these factors can be looked at as a non-typical situation. Mr. Salvage thinks it is OK. Mr. Burriss thought the Certified sign fulfills the goals we are looking for. We could compromise on the sign over the door and the loss of the other sign. By a 3- 1 majority, the 32 square feet sign may remain. The S sign over the door may be internally lit.

Purpose and Intent. Mr. Wilkenfeld is concerned about the overall impact of this application. He attended a meeting with Joe Hickman and the Law Director and discussed this and what we are charged with. The Law Director said we have to act in a way that is in the best interest of the community. Taking into consideration the far-reaching traffic problems, the Master Plan, citizens’ interest and the site plan, we need to broaden the scope of our discussion. There are a lot of good things here, and they are doing their job. But the traffic issue will turn into a fiasco at this corner, with traffic backed up, cars coming from Park Trails, the closing of River Road, and putting a greater burden on Newark- Granville Road when people avoid the waiting at the red light. We should put in an overpass. Mr. Clear said that could be 10 or more years in the future, so let’s start considering these things now. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Mr. Salvage thought we couldn’t hold this applicant responsible for conditions that exist in our community. Under the code we don’t have the right to request improving those conditions. The code states simply that the applicant can do nothing to exacerbate the situation. Our traffic engineer said Speedway will make it no worse than it is today. It would be bad to set his conclusions aside and act outside of them. Mr. Wilkenfeld respects that, but we are charged with taking care of the community first. It’s unfortunate that traffic is the way it is. Mr. Crites had said we can individually make a choice to accept or not accept the traffic studies. I choose not to accept them. Some things in his study are cautionary.

Site Plan. Mr. Burriss wanted it publicly noted that anything we have asked for architecturally, Speedway has come forth with, regarding floor plan, square footage, details, and materials and veered from their standard issue building plans

Closing Comments and Vote. Mr. Wilkenfeld requested submitting a dissenting opinion. Mr. Burriss suggested voting on the project and then voting on the Finding of Fact. He commends Richard for the time and effort he put into it the drafting of the Finding of Fact.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO VILLAGE COUNCIL APPROVAL OF APPLICATION #02-081 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: {Please refer to Memorandum to Granville Village Council,2/22/02, with attached Exhibit A, for details} MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS A TIE: MR. SALVAGE AND MR. PARRIS VOTING YEA AND MR. WILKENFELD AND MR. BURRISS VOTING NAE. (One member was absent.)

 Mr. Salvage stated that by a vote of 2 to 2 with one member absent, the GPC makes no recommendation on the approval of Application #02-081. All we can do is submit the facts. Mr. Wilkenfeld was discouraged in submitting a dissenting opinion, especially about the traffic and the Purpose and Intent. We could say “We would consider it, but we were divided. We discussed the evidence.” He feels Mr. Clear backpedaled the traffic study, and Mr. Wilkenfeld discounted what Speedway said in the traffic study. 

Work Sessions:

Centenary Methodist Church – Screening

 The Tree and Landscape Commission had requested the screening of the dumpster in the parking lot as per the code requirements, which has not been done. The other issue is the requirement to screen the parking lot from Main Street. There is little room there. Miles Waggoner stated that following the Planning Commission approval, Mr. Dorman said we need to address the issue of dumpster and parking lot screening. His concern is that currently the parking lot goes right up to the sidewalk and screening would take out some parking. Along Main Street they provide space but that is more to allow access to the parking lot. He does not think there is any room for planting. Handicap spaces would be removed. He would like to not put any planting on Main Street, except for the trees already there. Regarding the dumpster, they really need storage for the lawnmower and snow blower. He is concerned about people passing by in this public lot and tossing things over the buffer. The only way to protect it is to entirely enclose it. They could put in a permanent foundation and a small building to enclose all trash in containers and yard equipment. Mr. Salvage does not want to remove parking spaces. He thought variances would be needed for the north setback. Mr. Wilkenfeld would have a concern about the building. And if they do not add a building, the screening should be concrete blocks. He suggested talking with the neighbors. Mr. Burriss thought it should be a two-room building and has no problem with a building. He wants to think more about screening the parking lot. He would applaud an island with trees. Mr. Parris would be more comfortable with something reflecting materials on the building itself rather than a pre-fab.

Jeff Oster, 1179 Cherry Valley Road – Change of Use.

 Mr. Oster wants to buy the house next door for office space and would need 8 parking spaces. Discussion arose about the location of parking and handicap access into the house. He would add a ramp. Regarding a joint driveway, the problem would rest with future owners.

Finding of Fact: FOR SPEEDWAY, PLEASE SEE SEPARATE FINDINGS APPROVED TONIGHT. MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A, B, AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Hartzler, Kokosing, Methodist Church) AND ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS Speedway), AND MEMO TO VILLAGE COUNCIL, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF JULY 19th . BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 11:00 p.m.. Next Meetings: August 12 and August 26

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 7/8/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 2002 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld, Richard Main Members Absent: None Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Todd Wrobleski, Maxine Montgomery, Jerry Siper, Mary Lou VanAtta, Emma-Lou VanAtta, Bob Searles, Steve Mansfield, Mike Flood, Constance Barsky, Judy Duncan, Larry Morgan, Jeff Brown, John Klein, Jonathan Wocher, Jack Gehrum, Larry Miller, Art Chonko Citizens’ Comments: None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of June 24, 2002: Mr. Salvage wished to make changes on Page 4: Add the following in front of End Citizens Comments with: Mr. Salvage asked for additional citizen comments and pointed out that this is the only opportunity for such. However, no further comments were made and Mr. Salvage ended them. On Page 6, add at top of page: Mr. Salvage pointed out that under section 1171.03(b) square footage is limited to 6000 per tenant or use and that this applicant has two uses and therefore is allowed 12,000 square feet, making the proposal acceptable under the code, in his opinion.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Wilkenfeld said that since we are a body that makes recommendations, it seems it might be good to get a word-for-word transcript of the SuperAmerica part of the minutes and attach it to the minutes. Mr. Salvage would just as soon leave it up to Village Council. Mr. Parris said the information is there if they feel it is a necessity. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT WHEN WE SEND OUR RECOMMENDATION TO VILLAGE COUNCIL, WE SHOULD INCLUDE A WRITTEN FORM OF THE MINUTES FROM THE TAPES. THEN THEY CAN MAKE THE DECISION WHETHER THEY WANT TO READ IT. MS. LUCIER SECONDED 

 Mr. Salvage wanted to table this issue pending cost estimates from Mr. Dorman. MR. BURRIS MOVED TO TABLE THIS ISSUE TO FIND OUT THE COST. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Granville Village Schools, 310 North Granger Street – Replace all windows, remove all mechanical louvers.

 Mr. Dorman said the application is in conjunction with interior modifications planned for the school. They want to (1) Replace all the exterior windows, and (2) remove all existing mechanical louvers and infill those areas with masonry. Todd Wrobleski said they want to bring the building back to its historic nature. The windows would be double hung, the top part is fixed glass and the bottom is flexible. On the inside they are going to drop the ceilings to hide the new mechanicals that is the reason for the paneling on the new windows. A lot of the existing windows have glass and are painted in. Mr. Parris said from a functional standpoint will the double-hung windows have spring-loaded mechanical balances, and he wondered why they would not use an awning unit. The response was for cost and safety reasons with projecting windows. The finish is metal with color similar to building. 

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02- 082 AS PRESENTED MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Larry Morgan, 343 East Broadway – Front Porch Renovation

 Mr. Dorman said the application is to: (1) replace the 3 posts with similar posts; (2) replace floor; and (3) rebuild lattice understructure including the access door to an old coal bin. Larry Morgan said the 100-year-old porch takes abuse from the weather and has deteriorated and he wants to replace the flooring with geodeck, a recycled material and would use either a dark grey or light brown flooring. He wants to square up the posts. The pressure-treated posts would have a routed reveal. The existing railing will hold up for awhile yet. In answer to a question from Mr. Burriss, Mr. Morgan said the deck material would be run the same way as the existing but is a little higher, just below the threshold.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-091, AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE DARK GRAY OR LIGHT BROWN MATERIAL OF THE TYPE HE BROUGHT IN AS THE SAMPLE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Lee & Linda Davis, 304 North Pearl Street - Driveway Widening & Brick Sidewalks

 (A) Work has been done on the driveway, and at the last meeting the applicant was asked to bring in a new application. They have widened the driveway 4.5 to the east and 1.5 to the west and installed brick pavers on an aggregate base where the original drive was concrete. This will require BZBA approval for a lot coverage variance. Mr. Burriss said the work done heretofore has been done well. (B) They also wish to remove the aging sidewalk and replace it with brick pavers. These are Village sidewalks. Mike Flood, contractor, said they would be receptive to what the Village has done downtown. Ms. Lucier asked whether pavers negatively impact the ability of handicap access? Mike Flood did not know, but they could leave the ramp concrete. Ms. Lucier thought we ought to know for sure before granting applications. Mr. Parris said we need to be sensitive to Village improvements, and if there is a pattern we should follow it. Since these are Village sidewalks, (a) have we let other people do sidewalk work? (b) Once built, whose responsibility is it to maintain it? This is the first time anyone has asked for approval to tear up Village sidewalks. Mr. Dorman is only aware of older brick sidewalks, and no owner has done anything, to his knowledge, but he can research the question. Joe Hickman had asked the applicant to come before the PC. Mr. Salvage asked what are the specifications for sidewalks? A letter from neighbor Dan Bellman expresses his approval of the project.

(A) MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM A OF APPLICATION #02- 092 AS PRESENTED, PENDING APPROVAL OF LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE BY BZBA. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. (B)MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE PART B OF APPLICATION #02-092 AT THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Denison University, 459 South Main St. – Relocate Habitat for Humanity Recycling Barn

 Art Chonko said the college wants to help the community by allowing the recycling barn for aluminum cans at the steam plant. It seemed a convenient place for it, rather than behind the Episcopal Church. There would be little visual impact. This is for Habitat for Humanity and not related to the recycling bins on River Road. Mr. Wilkenfeld said that because it is in the TCOD, we have to agree this is not really a building for doing business, Mr. Salvage said it’s an accessory building.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-093 AS PRESENTED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Denison University – New Campus Map and Temporary Signage

 Art Chonko said they are requesting one-sided campus map signs at (1) Burke Hall, (2) Washington Drive/Lamson Lodge, and (3) the entrance from College Street. They will be internally lit. Variances would be needed for internal illumination and size.

The map would be grey aluminum with red letters. Ms. Lucier would not have a problem with the Burke Hall sign because it’s already there and already internally lit. Ms. Lucier has a problem with the College Street sign because she did not think there are many pedestrians who are starting at the bottom of the hill at night. It does not look good next to the nice entrance to the college. Mr. Parris agreed and said if someone were in a car, the headlights would light it up. Mr. Chonko did not know the foot candles since this is conceptual, but it needs enough light to be visible. He thought it would not be a glaring light. He added there will be more signs in the parking lots. Consensus was to deny the entrance sign at the Main/College Street entrance, and Mr. Chonko said he will withdraw it from the application. Mr. Salvage applied the criteria to the requested variances for internal illumination and size:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Denison itself is a condition that is peculiar in terms of the size, of the institution and the amount of access it has to the Village; the signage is actually very minimal when taken in context. B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. Not applicable. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. They do, but it’s required to adequately represent the University. Also part of the square footage that we’re dealing with is architectural presentation of the map. D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. That can’t happen. E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the of persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. No, it helps them find where they are going on campus.

Mr. Salvage stated that after reviewing 1171.01 we feel that approval of the variances to grant the application is in order.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT UPON REVIEWING THE VARIANCES FOR THE CAMPUS MAP SIGNAGE, TWO OUT OF THE THREE PROPSED SIGNS SPECIFICALLY AT BURKE HALL AND AT THE INTERSECTION NEAR LAMSON LODGE/MITCHELL CENTER MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIATION. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-094 (PART A) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT WE ARE ONLY APPROVING THE PROPOSED SIGNS AT BURKE HALL AND AT THE INTERSECTION NEAR LAMSON LODGE/MITCHELL CENTER. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Then there was a sort discussion on the proposed temporary sing to direct summer conference attendees away from the Main/College Street entrance to avoid the construction

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT APPROVE APPLICATION #02-094 (PART B) FOR THE TEMPORARY SIGN AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Christopher Avery, 127 South Prospect Street – Front Porch Renovation

 Mr. Dorman came across this project already underway and requested the applicant file an application. Applicant wants to (1) replace posts, (2) install new floor, (3) repaint railings, (4) replace lattice around base, and (5) replace entrance walk on the house side of the sidewalk. The post snapped, the floor is collapsing, and the roof is sagging. The balcony part is not being renovated at this time. Dr. Avery said the deteriorating condition made renovations crucial for safety reasons. One part of the renovation uncovered another, and the project grew. It will match the existing materials and colors as closely as possible. 

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-095 AS PRESENTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Eloise Miller, 590 West Broadway – Fence Extension into TCOD

 Mr. Dorman said Ms. Miller extended a portion of the 5’ tall blue-green wooden fence he approved last year into the TCOD. Mr. Dorman said the fence is 93½’ from the center of road, which puts it 36½’ into the TCOD. From fence to the front of the house is 38’, and from the front of the house to the sidewalk is 30’. Mr. Wilkenfeld noted this house has been there a long time and this is part of the back yard and does not impinge on the view. The purpose of the TCOD is not to turn things into a mining town and put things right at the roadside. Mr. Parris asked whether this is a modification and was told yes. But he would have been more comfortable if this had been a new application, since it’s in a different zoning area. Mr. Salvage wondered whether we would have approved it if it had been in the TCOD originally. It’s minor under the circumstances. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION #01-106 AND FIND IT TO BE MINOR. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jim Hartzler, 203 North Plum Street – Removal of Two Windows

 Mr. Dorman said the PC approved an application for a retaining wall a month or so ago, and this is an amendment for the removal of two non-historic windows. The siding will match. Mr. Parris said we did not even talk about the house during the former discussion. Mr. Dorman thought it was minor enough that we could add this to the original application, but Mr. Parris said the last time he wanted a retaining wall, but this is a completely separate issue. Mr. Salvage did not think he would have trouble getting approval with proper application.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO CONSIDER THIS A MINOR MODIFICATION. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY DENIED.

Speedway/SuperAmerica, SR 16/S.CherryValley Rd. – Proposed Gas Station

 This is the second formal hearing for the proposed gas station and convenience store, which was tabled at the last meeting. {It was requested that this be a word-for- word transcription, so the secretary has done this in a separate file.}

MS. LUCIER MOVED THAT WE REMOVE APPLICATION #02-081 FROM THE TABLE. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Salvage requested the Planner to provide an update, and Mr. Dorman referred them to the cover memo and the applicant.

Jonathan Wocher, Planner said he would like to cover a couple of items newly submitted and then get to the issue of traffic. Greg Dale briefed him on the issues addressed at the last meeting. The revised plans include utility plans, dumpster, landscaping. Aerial views of the site provide context of the Speedway with respect to the flood plain. We also submitted materials relative to containment issues, catch basins, and financial responsibility for underground tanks. Mr. Wocher wanted to focus on traffic issues so he introduced Jack Gehrum, Traffic Consultant, who oversaw the traffic study. He will address basic assumptions for the traffic study and what Speedway feels would be improvements in the traffic. Jack Gehrum said in December, 2001, his firm completed a draft traffic impact study basically for a Speedway facility with 12 pumps, and convenience store totaling 7800 square feet at the intersection of SR 16 and S. Cherry Valley Road {CVR}. The traffic counts showed {CVR) has 14,250 vehicles per day and there are 37,000 on SR 16 and some significant traffic delays under existing conditions. Looking to see what the problems were, they studied trip generation and distribution for the facility. For the trip generation, the basis is a collection of counts across the country, land uses, and traffic studies, to allow consistency between communities. For this facility in the morning peak, there were 60 in and 60 out, evening peak 80 in and 80 out. Those trips vary in their consistency because we are dealing with suburban locations, and there are a lot of pass-by trips. Pass-by trips are trips that are already on the road, diverted to the gas station. About 2/3 of the gas station trips would be diverted traffic. One- third are trips primarily to the gas station. Mr. Gehrum said at the major intersection we are already at a significant level and we are not going to increase that. We are looking at a single use on the property. Ms. Lucier and Mr. Wilkenfeld disagreed. Mr. Gehrum’s recommendations include constructing a left-hand lane for SuperAmerica (SA). I suggest we add a lane and change the current through lane on SR 16 to a through right turn lane, to have dual right turns and move more vehicles through the intersection. Another issue had to do with whether additional Right-of-Way {ROW} was needed on CVR in front of the facility or whether the roadway was limited to a 5 lane section. There is a partial ROW and it would provide means to widen CVR as the area becomes developed. Ms. Lucier asked how much difference does it make whether you have 8 or 12 fueling stations? Mr. Gehrum said if you look at the figure there is an average per fueling position around the country and he clarified the data in the report. They converted your trip generation into average fueling position, so the equation says per fueling position you have X number of trips and you can use that according to the number of fueling positions. Ms. Lucier asked if fewer pumps would help, and was told with fewer pumps you would have fewer cars. If you have a demand and not enough pumps, you would have a lot of people waiting around. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked Mr. Gehrum to shed light on the 11 studies and where these studies took place; in the city, country or suburban areas, and was told that this information is standardized and that is what we use. Mr. Burriss asked: Is your recommendation that SA Way be three lanes? He was told that is correct. Mr. Salvage asked what impact would it have if the right out were removed one and was told part of that is marketing and access rather than actual need. Mr. Parris is concerned because of the congestion of the area along to the close proximity of the Speedway with people crossing the traffic pattern. Right in right out is no problem, but with people going left in or left out, people are going to close their eyes and pray. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked for clarification on Page 13, the level of service and classifying things A-F and delays, and can you relate it to the studies we are looking at here? Page 14 looks at all these terms and they are all at a level in our study that the volume exceeds capacity and where does it say how we get to acceptable levels of capacity? You are saying there is no capacity for any more volume. Mr. Gehrum said they did not analyze this because it is an existing problem. We don’t see what will happen in the future, but Mr. Wilkenfeld said we have to take into account a problem that already exists. How can we be expected to absorb more capacity? Mr. Gehrum’s group doesn’t examine the roadway to see what ODOT is doing. They are studying the impact of this station. How much worse will it be than what’s already there? He said how do you stop traffic from continuing on a public highway? On SR 16 the backups are tremendous. Ms. Lucier said one of the things we look at is does this proposal exacerbate the traffic problem? Mr. Wilkenfeld thinks we have some real safety issues and has a question about not just this study but studies in general. How do you address people in the left traveling lane when they decide to get into the right lane? It slows everybody down. Are you taking into account the actual flow: Mr. Brown said you can’t figure a crazy person into the analysis. That would apply to anywhere with more than two lanes. You can’t design something for a person being irresponsible that close to the intersection. Mr. Salvage said these are questions that can’t be answered. Ms. Lucier asked if we have a traffic consultant present? Doyle Clear, Traffic Engineer, said. {summarized here}, “Most of the time the subject of traffic impact is dealt with at the zoning level, not at the site planning level. I looked at it as a permitted use and instead of looking at a traffic study I approached this more as a site access system to see if it works. I have worked with Jack Gehrum and one of their problems is you don’t have any guidelines on how to do traffic studies. I asked Seth what did you ask them to do, and I think PKG did their best in answering how to do it. They are not to go beyond what they think is in the best interests of their study. You might think about adopting guidelines used by most cities. Two major problems exist: (1)We are dealing with a roadway system which we are going to rebuild some part of on the south part of CVR. My contention is that since they own the other two parcels, the study should have considered land uses on the other two parcels of land. When McDonalds comes in, you wouldn’t want to tear up what you’ve just built. So my suggestion was to ask them to look at the study considering the other two lots being developed, i.e., fast food and a high turnover sit down restaurant. Capacity ratios are where volume equals capacity. In the guidelines it will be responsibility of developer to mitigate the traffic increase. So (1) They did not take into consideration the other parcels. And (2)They didn’t mitigate their impacts. Seth wrote to them and we got no response so I was asked to take another look at it from a traffic standpoint. I am also working with Joe and Seth on the north section of CVR. We are looking at what are the kinds of things we need to do on the north side? They are under design now on the north. One of the things Jack was trying to explain was diverted trips. I agree with Jack this will generate very few new trips. The development will take traffic from the road. But what happens with the exception of how to balance right in and right out with the person who is coming east, right in, left out, that was a through trip and added traffic. If I am going north, I have to turn left, make a loop. The most devastating is left in left out. Those trips are moments for significant impact. So what happens now since this is a permitted use and previously approved? What is it we can do to make the system work better and mitigate the impact? So to mitigate the impact, what needs to be done is to modify the north and widen the south side. My suggestion to Seth was perhaps since the village is doing the north leg we might work with ODOT on adding a second north turn lane to SA Way from CVR. During a.m. and p.m.peaks, 13 cars would want to make a left turn. If all 13 of them use it, it will block traffic, so my objective was to put them into two lanes. My suggestion was to ask for more ROW. I did not move anything but the objective is to get the sidewalks within the ROW and the roadway along ROW. Then we add a second northbound left turn lane. We need to make arrangements for space for queueing. Get ODOT to help. And make improvements to get back to the bad level we had before. If we dealt only with Speedway, then the 5-lane section is appropriate. When you start adding the other two parcels, these three generate 400 vehicles in there in the morning and 430 in the evening. If you think these are going to come on line, then move the curb and gutter all at the same time. The traffic engineer was told to make the intersection safer so they take green time away from the side streets. They did not do that. So everyone had an equal time of delay. This is an Achilles heel on SR 16 and we don’t want to get pinched on the north and south. Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that the report on Page 7:promises SR 16 will continue to experience problems. On Page 11, you say: “Rather than adding through lanes, the State will probably opt to construct an interchange in the vicinity of CVR.; however, it is understood that such a modification is at least ten years in the future.” He added that a memo from Joe Hickman to Seth Dorman regarding Council’s direction reads: “…any entities developing along CVR must live within the confinements of the existing five lane intersection.”

Chairman Salvage asked for Citizens’ Comments

STEVE MANSFIELD was one of the citizens who voted against the previous application in ’97 and that referendum proposal was defeated and the newspaper said it was defeated by 63% voting against it. I felt my views were an expression of the Comprehensive Master Plan and some of the zoning code developments at that time. Other comments: <> Number of pumps; It’s hard to find any station with 12 pumps. They usually have 6 islands,.and he thinks this out of character for Granville. <> Other lot usage. <> Will this store/station sell diesel and if they do, would large trucks would be involved; re the left turn situation, what would a large truck there at 5:30 do to the problem?

CONSTANCE BARSKY would agree with everything said. The other thing she would ask is if you do a calculation of 60- 80 cars at peak hours to see how much money that would generate. It would not be much money, so they are going to need more cars to make any money. <> Also, how much tax would it generate? A tax might support 10 kids per year. <> Also, when Bob Evans realized the result of the survey, they did cooperate with us to make their facility agree with the Village. {She read a report of balancing long- and short-term, which is available from her.) We have a right as citizens of this community and they need to come on our terms. They can’t just come in and say traffic will not have an impact. That is not true.

End of Public Comment

A representative from Speedway reported that in Pataskala there are 12 fuel stations. This is not in the middle of the village. It’s a highway oriented location. The temptation to diminish the number of pumps is likely to create a demand for more pumps. Removing pumps is not the way to reduce traffic. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked Speedway what is your goal and the average gas sales? Answer $8-12 per sale. It varies. Mr. Parris said you know from sales reports how many cars visited your pumps per day and how much money you brought in. Most of the people in the store are probably going to be at the gas pumps. If you can’t answer that, you should not be in business. He wants a check and balances and a number from the business side of it. If you took all your vehicles, how many trips do you get per day per pump. We want to see if there is a match there. The representative replied that after we determine the site and layout, we decide return of investments. Ms. Lucier asked what would you project your income would be? Mr. Parris is looking for correlations between what your business reports tell you as far as trips going and what our traffic studies say. Is the traffic study worth the paper it is printed on? He was told those are nationally generated trip rates. Mr. Wilkenfeld said the studies don’t match. We have no idea of where they were taken from. Your goal is to make money, but you have got to know what your average sale is and how many cars you anticipate. The representative said 1000 customers come into our stores, maybe 980 vehicles per day. A lot of businesses have a busiest time in the peak for traffic because we want to analyze when most of the cars are there. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked if this comes to $9800 per day and was told, “I don’t know about that,” by a representative of the applicant. Speedway could be considered as a loss. Speedway made road improvements with the assumption that this use would occur. Given the uncertainty about the future interchange, we feel it’s appropriate to assume morning trips and to not consider the other two lots. The contribution that Speedway is willing to make in addition to the improvements would be the dedication of the ROW and what could be a 5-lane intersection. Our contribution would be the ROW that would accommodate future lot improvements of lots 2 and 3. Some lane restriping may be appropriate, i.e., right turns. Mr. Clear noted that he was working for SA on the previous study and it was an evaluation of what needed to be done. Mr. Wilkenfeld has a question for our Law Director. The conditions have changed for PUD’s. This is a legislative process. We brought our charter and codes in line with that. The courts said it was a legislative process. How many times do the citizens of Granville have to go through this.? :Law Director Crites said every time the Supreme Court changes anything we have to change also. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked, “If Village Council votes No, is that the end of it?” The answer was: It can be appealed through the Court of Appeals. If it goes to referendum, then what happens? Answer: Appellant can make a new application, and they can keep coming back. Mr. Salvage noted that they have the right to use their land. Mr. Parris stated that Mr. Clear brought up the point about considering the entire site, not just the gas station. In PUD we couldn’t do this because we have to have the whole thing in front of us. This is a different zone district, but what is your opinion of how we should consider this parcel: One site plan for all three or one only? Mr. Crites said there are a number of factors GPC can and should consider. Ms. Lucier asked about a difference of opinion the Planning Commission had about the issue of the canopy. Seth was counting square footage as part of the building at a ratio established for Certified. What does the code say? Mr. Crites asked: “Did you look at whether it is one or two uses? It could go either way. Mr. Burris said that regarding some of the improvements agreed upon and made with Bob Evans, the previous station had a smaller number of pumps and square footage. Were you considering that? The station we are now looking at is bigger but the lot is also. The Speedway representative said originally we had 4 lots and we incorporated two into one for the gas station. This is our current standard building. Whether it was smaller or not, there are additional improvements recommended in our study and we agreed to implement them. John Stephens showed shingle samples and a cultured stone sample with colors. The band around the building is called the EIFS. Synthetic stuff. We were asked to put a detail with cap. Showed detail of sample at the end of the runs for the building and also on the canopy. He showed the detail of the column. We agreed on a column of round capital and smooth shaft but we were asked to have a tapered column. The gutter and downspouts would have a collar that blends in. The gutters on canopy are internal. Mr. Burriss asked if 60’ is sufficient for three lanes for SA Way? What about the type of ourdoor products? Mr. Stephens said this is seasonal. Outdoor products are important to Speedway, and we would like to be able to keep that. Mr. Burriss asked what is the relationship between the top of the ice machine and the bottom of the windows. He was told it’s below the windows. Also, we want pop displays. Mr. Burriss said that we didn’t allow Certified to have stuff outside. And they are being asked to remove it. The Speedway representative said they hope to come to an understanding what you are asking for. Outdoor display is still under discussion. 

Dumpster: The dumpster enclosure is same stone on two sides with picket fence. Enclosed on three sides with gate on front. .Mr. Burriss asked if the propane could be put in there between the building and the dumpster? And Mr. Parris assumed garbage trucks backed in there and was told Yes, there is room.

Signage: The Speedway Representative said they want to have the permanent sign board in place of the changeable copy sign because they are under the allowable maximum space. Mr. Parris said we don’t have to give the maximum space to you.

Lighting: Speedway said they are under Certified’s footcandles, which were approved. Mr. Parris thought it didn’t look excessive. It’s OK. There would be external lighting of the free-standing sign. 

Hours of Operation: We want 24 hours; it’s important. The majority of the Planning Commission said no.

Purpose and Intent: Mr. Wilkenfeld would like Mike Crites to talk about the purpose and intent and sections under PCD development standards A and B. Mr. Parris feels right out. would be a hazard. Doyle Clear and Jack Gehrum agreed that elimination of the right out would reduce the number of conflicts. People would not leave at the same time people are going through the intersection. The intersection at Bob Evans is going to be full of problems. I have worked for many developments re gas station access and they would clearly prefer going right out. Mr. Wilkenfeld called Mr. Crites’s office. He spoke with Mr. Gorry about the Planned Development District. Under the purpose and intent {1171.01} it says it is part of the discussion and decision process and I want Mr. Crites to verify. On 92G there are issues re traffic and PDD to discuss. Specifically Tax Revenue and how that relates to the school the costs to us and impact on in the Village; enhancement rather than harm; transportation; community objectives of the Master Plan. I want to make sure this is something we need to work at. Mr. Crites said the Purpose and Intent in 1171 lays out parameters through which Village Council expects PUDs to be achieved. These are all things the Planning Commission can consider in approving a development plan. Mr. Wilkenfeld said in 92G (A-E), we are also charged to look at safety and how it impacts the entire Village. Mr. Crites reads from ‘c’ - “The Commission shall not recommend nor shall Council approve a development plan unless they find that: A – Such planned development provides adequate ingress and egress and does not adversely impact traffic patterns nor unreasonably increase traffic usage of municipal streets to the detriment of the safety and welfare of the public. B - Planned development fronting on major streets shall be provided with parallel service streets in order to limit access to one intersection on a major street.” C is parking. These are factors that need to be considered by you and the Village Council. 

Square Footage: Mr Parris said Mr. Crites needs to research this. We came up with 85% for Certified last year. Mr. Dorman explained that regarding the canopy, codes are not always clear and interpretations have to be made. That was made for Certified in the SBD. The Law Director said when you do something, you do it consistently. Mr. Salvage does not recall the 85% limitation so it should not be considered. Ms. Lucier said the Village Council said building the canopy ought to have some relevance under massing. We don’t have to design it tonight.

Uses: Mr. Parris said we have two uses which we don’t know about yet. I want to consider this site with the bare bones of variances. I think we need to apply the code to the site plan. Mr. Dorman explained that under 1171.03(c) deviations are allowed. It’s within your authority to recommend deviations. Mr. Wilkenfeld has a way to determine whether it is one or two uses. Would you build a gas station without a store? No. Would you build a store without a gas station? No. So it’s one use. Mr. Salvage said, No, that’s two uses, and Mr. Dorman said it’s two separate uses and they are both allowable. So they are allowed 12,000 square feet.

Site Plan and Outdoor Sales: Mr. Wilkenfeld feels the design of the building does not fit too well with Granville, but it’s OK Mr. Burriss wants additional screening of outside sales items. They have to enclose outside products, and Mr. Salvage does not like propane at the end of the building. Mr. Wilkenfeld does not want anything outside the building. Because you are extending the store. But Mr. Salvage asked, “What if they provide an enclosure. It must be screened. Mr. Dorman reminded that it says in the code, 1171.04 (8) outdoor display is prohibited. Mr. Parris would have to see what type of screening is proposed. Mr. Burriss asked about setback and with the current sign plan, has there been enough area allowed for road work? {This will be discussed later}

Lighting is OK

Greenspace: Mr. Salvage said we want them to include an area along SA Way. I would allow them to use the dedicated area for extension of utilities. They can use it for nondevelopment items.

Taxes: Mr. Wilkenfeld asked about their cost to us. Look at the community objective of the Master Plan. When are the people of the Village going to get what they ask for? Mr. Salvage figured it would be valued at $1-3 million, land and building, including all improvements. Mr. Wilkenfeld wants to be sure it does not cost the village more for services. It should not be a tax loss situation. {He reads from Master Plan} “Smaller facilities do not bring in much tax.” There’s a lot of commercial in Heath, but it does not bring in enough to cover expenses. Heath puts in little businesses and then bigger businesses can’t go in. We are not going to generate money. We should have other less traffic- oriented businesses. Mr. Parris said you are comparing different types of businesses re cost/ benefit ratio. It would be nice if we could pick and choose, but I think we have to work at what’s presented to us by the owner of the property. It just can’t be larger cost than benefit re infrastructure. Mr. Wilkenfeld said Mr. Dorman brought in figures from Jenkins and Certified for 2001. Certified - $2,675/year, Jenkins - $4,191/year. Mr. Salvage said these are old figures. Mr. Burriss thought that based on $1 million value, we should be able to determine property taxes, and he asked Mr. Dorman to get that. Ms. Lucier asked him to look into increased maintenance cost for widening roads. Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that Re community objectives of the Master Plan (1171.01), it says, “c. A development pattern in harmony with land use density, transportation facilities, and community facilities are objectives of the comprehensive plan.” He had surveys from two different master plans. 19% wanted convenience stores, 72% did not want convenience stores. The Master Plan says people want greenspace., scenic vistas, people have not gotten from their government what they have asked for. Why do we spend time and money doing Master Plans and then ignore it? Mr. Salvage countered: “Use the existing Master Plan, 1998. That’s not a master plan, it’s a survey.” Mr. Parris said that even though there are a lot of things in our code, I think with the Master Plan and some of my own views I was not put here to pass policy but rather to measure against the code in place right now. If public opinion is contrary to that, it will come out in the work of the Village Council or new referendums.

Traffic: Mr. Salvage wants the applicant to make the upgrades proposed by the Village Traffic Consultant, including no left hand turns. <> Clarify the 5-lane expansion to SA <> Eliminate right out and left out <> Restriping. <>SA Way will be 3 lanes. <> If the widening is done, how does that alter what we are looking at? <> Sidewalk is sufficient, <> Buffers? <> I want them to dedicate additional ROW so an additional lane can go in the future when two lots are developed. <> Bring in final drawing showing upgrades and additional ROW for the next meeting. Mr. Wilkenfeld reported that in the Master Plan ’98, page 18, it says: “Address the highly dangerous intersection – as evidenced by several fatal and near-fatal accidents—of River Road and State Route 16 by making egress from River Road onto Rt 16 from both the north and south, a right- hand turn only.” “Granville officials should continue to develop a process to manage access to areas of new development so that vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows safely and at the desired capacity and speed.” Mr. Burriss noted that: “I don’t want Carl to feel he is alone. This is a very difficult issue for all of us, and part of the reason it is difficult is that we care. We would not be serving on the Planning Commission if we didn’t care. It’s not like we are serving on the Planning Commission because people to like us. It is not like we get thanks. I want to publicly thank Carl for bringing in the points he is making and we may have to address this further. I think Carl and Richard can discuss issues that they may not agree on. I am not sure how the cycle is broken. I concentrate on architecture and make things the best they can be regardless of some of my personal feelings. We have to continue the process.” Mr. Wilkenfeld said, “I appreciate that.”

Mr. Salvage said he will draft a Finding of Fact and we can discuss anything before we finalize at the next meeting. The applicant requested tabling the application and will submit revised drawings for the next meeting.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION AT THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A, B, AND C{REVISED}, D. AND E {AS MODIFIED}, AND F UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Schools, Morgan, Davis, Denison, Avery) AND A (Miller) (AND ITEM B AS A DENIAL) (Hartzler) UNDER OLD BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF JULY 8. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 12 Midnight. Next Meetings: July 22 and August 12

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 6/24/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION June 24, 2002 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld, Richard Main Members Absent: None Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Jeff Brown, Howard Bowen, Buck Withers, Dave Betts, Greg Dale, Maxine Montgomery, Chad and Carolyn Brubaker, Jerry Siper, MaryLou VanAtta, Donna Childers, Steve Mansfield, Brian & Jean Nichols, Vera & Ron Bogert, Mary Kay Campbell, Tom Mitchell, Mike Flood, Constance Barsky, Judy Duncan, Cynthia & John Cort, John Eliot, Bob Rutherford, Rose Wingert, Margaret Clayton, Rochelle Steinberg, Jim Huddle, Jim Medeger, Judith Thomas, Sheryl Gardner, Lee Davis, Sharon Sellito Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of May 30, 2002, and June 10, 2002: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE BOTH SETS OF MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Lee & Linda Davis, 304 North Pearl Street - Modification

 Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants wish to extend the fence 12’ to the east, to move the gate, to widen the driveway, and to change driveway from concrete to brick pavers. The concrete has already been removed and pavers installed. In the process the driveway was widened to 18” on the west and 4½’ on east side. This widening will need a variance for lot coverage. Changes were made without approval of the Village Planner, so this is an after-the-fact application. Does this constitute a major or minor modification? The driveway was not on the original application, but is part of the modification. The application did include addition of two patios. Mike Flood said his company (Albyn’s) will be putting in the fence. In widening the driveway, it made sense to him to try to get two cars in that area. He said the applicants decided not to add the east side patio but to add flagstones instead. Ms. Lucier asked whether the pavers are such that a few along the edge could be removed without harming the driveway, and the answer was Yes. The four items at issue are: (1) replace sidewalks and driveway with pavers; (2) lawn irrigation (not a concern of GPC); (3) driveway widening; (4) fence extension. The applicant needs to submit an application for (1) and (3). MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THE FENCE PORTION OF THIS AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IS A MINOR MODIFICATION, AND THE REST OF IT IS A MAJOR MODIFICATION. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION #01-149 TO EXTEND THE FENCE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Jim McKivergin, 124 South Main Street – Satellite Dish

Mr. Dorman said the application is to install a small dish on the south side of rear of the building to allow a training program for Re/Max. Mr. McKivergin added that the dish is necessary to receive the materials, and equipment and materials are free. It would go back on the shingle roof above the back deck. It is the only way they can provide services for their agents. It is not visible from the store or south side, though it may be visible from the Park National Bank parking lot. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether it can withstand winds of 80 mph, and Mr. Dorman said that after an extensive telephone search, he learned it could do so.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-078 TO INSTALL A SATELLITE DISH. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Centenary UMC, 235 East Broadway – Front Porch Railing & Porch Foundation Renovations

 Ms. Brubaker said they wish to install a white cedar railing on the porch with 32” spindles and to screen the cement block foundation of the Methodist parsonage. Mr. Burriss asked whether it would be 32” and said that might not be high enough to meet the Building Code. Ms. Brubaker will adhere to the codes. Mr. Dorman will work with her on this.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-079 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE RAIL BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT BUILDING CODE AND THAT THE VILLAGE PLANNER WILL ISSUE FINAL APPROVAL. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Thomas Mitchell, 335 West Elm Street – Retaining Walls

 Mr. Dorman said retaining walls are necessary to provide proper drainage. Mr. Mitchell said the retaining walls would be 1’ to 4’ high and made of “Garden Wall.” He excavated a little bit to make sure the water would not go into the house, but water will be captured and piped to the back of the lot in a 4” plastic line.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-080 AS MODIFIED BY THE DRAWING SUBMITTED 6/24/02. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Speedway/SuperAmerica, State Route 16 at Cherry Valley Road – Speedway Gas Station

Mr. Dorman showed pictures of other Speedways in the area, and he and the representative, Greg Dale, pointed out various details of each. Mr. Dale displayed a color copy of the site plan and said this is a complicated application and review. He proposes to focus on those items Mr. Dorman identified as potentially not in compliance with the guidelines. He believes out of the 60 items in Section 1171.03 (b), six are possibly not in compliance and he wants to focus on those:

(1) Maximum of 6,000 square feet per Tenant: Including 85% of the canopy is what brings Speedway over the limit. Mr. Dorman said the 85% arose when we dealt with Certified. Certified is in the SBD rather than the PCD, but the codes are similar and we made a policy of including the canopy in the calculation at only 85%, and we wanted to be consistent. Others thought the canopy has some weight as far as lot coverage is concerned. It is also in relation to lot coverage, density, and maximum single tenant. Mr. Salvage thinks square footage is calculated inside. Mr. Dorman said this excess would need a variance for maximum single tenant, or ‘deviation,’ as it is called now. The Planning Commission has guidelines for reviewing development plans. The Planning Commission has the authority to vary from these guidelines.

(2) Build-to Line and Front Yard Setback: Build-to lines should be 30’ from the right-of-way. The representative said that provision is primarily intended for older areas where they are trying to preserve street frontage. That does not make sense here on the busy highway. The only way they could meet it would be to turn the building around.

(3) Height: Minimum is 1½ stories, and the architect has responded to the Planning Commission’s comments on this. The application shows 1 story in appearance.

(4) Hours of Operation: They are proposing a 24-hour operation because it’s on a state route with no residents around.

(5) Lighting: 25 foot candles are the maximum, but at some spots the proposal is for 35 foot candles for safety sake. There is no light spillover. 

(6) Signage: Deviances are necessary. What is being proposed is a similar package as was approved for Certified.

(7) Parking spaces: 15 is the maximum allowed for this particular proposal, but they are proposing 12 regular spaces with 1 handicapped space and the space around the pumps could also be counted. Mr. Salvage said our Law Director said we could count the spaces at the pumps, but Mr. Dorman clarified that the code was providing for a maximum not a minimum.

 These items will be discussed after the traffic discussion. 

 Comments from Citizens

 Vera Bogert said she lives ½ mile away and has concerns about the water table and having toxic materials so close to her well. Is there to be a monitoring process? The representative said there is a sensitive monitoring service. They have environmental catch basins, and water will go into the retention pond and flow out. Any contamination would be pumped out and go into a terminal to be recycled. Mr. Salvage asked about insurance against contamination, and the representative said they are self- insured. He asked whether they contribute to the state fund for clean-ups, and the representative could not answer that question. When a lift station is put in, the underground water table has to be lowered. Speedway plans to raise the site several feet. They don’t anticipate going very deep for the tanks, about 13’. The site will be raised to street level, or 1’ above grade. John Cort brought up the traffic concerns, especially with a possible River Road closing. State Route 16 was built as a bypass around Granville; now people are going through Granville to bypass traffic on SR- 16. He said future eventualities must be considered as well as the Speedway corner, but Mr. Salvage didn’t know that we can make assumptions at this time. Mr. Cort said there are 25-30 cars waiting behind a stopped school bus Constance Barsky said the application is for fuel sales, as opposed to a gas station. They are not included in permitted uses as a convenience store. <> Also, regarding the survey from the Master Plan, did citizens agree that they needed it? 72% said a convenience store was not needed, nor was gasoline. They didn’t build a gas station at that time because people didn’t want it. <> Six pumps are not needed most of the time, and they could reduce them to four. <> The Master Plan does not want 24- hour stores. To ask for a variance is inappropriate. <> We need a clear indication of what taxes would be generated. A building like this would be at a minimum level. Certified only pays $1700 per year in property taxes. Rochelle Steinberg is concerned about the traffic. At 5 p.m. and lunchtime you can wait for three light cycles. A gas station would only contribute to the congestion. Mr. Salvage said the Village has been working on timing of the signal and he thinks it’s been better this week. MaryLou VanAtta lives on Cherry Valley Road and agrees that the traffic is horrendous and will be getting worse with the River Road traffic. If they want to widen the road, the only way to do it is to have more commercial development. The Cherry Valley Lodge has its own turn lane. Sharon Sellito asked why the applicants are calling it a store that sells gas rather than just a gas station. Didn’t we vote against that? The referendum was to overturn Village Council’s decision to have it, according to the October 1998, Sentinel. It was defeated by 63%. Mr. Salvage asked for additional citizens comments and pointed out that this is the only opportunity for such; however no further comments were made, Mr. Salvage ended the citizens comments section.

End Citizens Comments

 Mr. Wilkenfeld thought there was some confusion with the code. This is legislative, and we are looking at variances. Anything that affects the well being of the community, such as traffic, we can take into account. Mr. Dorman referred the group to 1171.03 (c), 1-8, which outlines the considerations to make our decision. Ms. Lucier thought traffic was an underlying issue we have to deal with before we get to lighting and signage, and we need to talk with traffic consultants. Regarding whether or not a store is an appropriate use, everything done in a convenience store falls into what is listed here. Is what it says, exclusive of other kinds of stores? This is a gas station and other items are a convenience. There’s nothing inappropriate, nothing allows us to exclude. A convenience store is an amalgamation of things listed here. Mr. Parris said when we worked on Certified that was already an existing business. They had a store before. Mr. Dorman said the issue of a convenience store never arose for Certified because they already had a store, albeit a small one. Mr. Parris said as far as definitions go, 50 years ago a gas station provided service, but now they all have convenience stores. Is a convenience store considered a grocery store? Does a gas station automatically include a convenience store? If a gas station is something that just sells gas, what do we call one that sells gas, convenience items, and service? Mr. Wilkenfeld thought it was a convenience store with gas sales. It needs a definition. Mr. Salvage asked whether we are comfortable under our zoning code to proceed with this application, and Mr. Parris said yes, if it is a permitted use. Mr. Wilkenfeld and Ms. Lucier want a legal opinion, and Mr. Main was very concerned about traffic and stacking. The engineer present said his firm did not prepare the traffic study. He is here for site design and couldn’t respond to traffic questions. Mr. Salvage specifically requested the traffic engineer’s presence. The attorney said they look at traffic generated by their development. They found that 70% of the trips generated by Speedway come from vehicles already on the road, and the other 30% of the trips generated by Speedway would be new trips. The traffic problem is caused by the high regional traffic on SR-16. This applicant has already contributed $250,000 toward road improvements. This facility will not cure traffic problems at the intersection nor materially increase it. Mr. Salvage said neither traffic study felt this facility would substantially impact traffic already there. Ms. Lucier said it’s the turns that significantly affect the traffic situation more than just the number of cars. Mr. Wilkenfeld is concerned about the complexities of lane shifting on SR-16 and that slower vehicles have to cut across two lanes of traffic to get to the left turn lane at the intersection. This is what causes accidents. Mr. Salvage thought the only concern was making left turns out of the proposed gas station. But Mr. Wilkenfeld felt we are responsible for the wider community, and that people avoid the traffic on SR-16 by going through town. Mr. Salvage thought that had nothing to do with the Speedway proposal. Mr. Salvage thought the issue was how we make sure Speedway does not exacerbate the situation. Mr. Burriss said all of us have major concerns about traffic and the traffic studies. They are not easy to read, and we all have a little built-in distrust toward traffic studies. To move forward, there needs to be greater explanations of the traffic situation, we need additional information.

The group returned to the items of concern noted by Greg Dale earlier:

(1) Maximum Single Tenant: Lot coverage is OK. The canopy is included in the gross square footage and puts it over the maximum, but Mr. Salvage has never heard of a canopy included in the single tenant calculation. We would have a hard time denying this application because of this overage. The canopy should be an accessory structure. Mr. Wilkenfeld said that from the top the canopy is larger than the building He thought GPC could ask for fewer pumps and make the canopy smaller. Mr. Parris thought it should be considered under lot coverage but not under gross square footage. Mr. Dorman said we addressed that for Certified, and the interpretation was that of the Law Director, who said it is a structure but since it does not have walls, you could give a discount by counting only 85% of its square footage. For consistency we need to do the same. Mr. Salvage pointed out that under Section 1171.03 (b) square footage is limited to 6,000 square feet per tenant or use, and that this applicant has 2 uses and therefore is allowed 12,000 square feet making it acceptable under the code in his opinion. Mr. Wilkenfeld wondered whether there are two tenants, the convenience store and the gas station. (2) Build-To Line: Mr. Wilkenfeld would prefer having the front facing SuperAmerica Way. Green space buffers would be added to shield the rear from SR-16. Mr. Burriss said that was to permit parking behind the facade of the building. The applicant should provide a site plan that includes location of the ROW and edge. The representative said they would not remove the fence and trees. (3) Height: The Commission had no problem. The applicant has followed our recommendations. (4) Hours of Operation: Mr. Wilkenfeld feels they should stick to the maximum 18 hours. Ms. Lucier agrees and feels there would be less need of police protection with 18 hours. Mr. Burriss is not comfortable with the additional hours in terms of future areas and also properties of similar function that are already under that restriction. Mr. Parris agrees. Mr. Salvage has a question with what the code says, and he has no problem with a 20-hour operation. The representative wants us to consider a deviation. (5) Lighting: Mr. Salvage thought this looked like a modest plan. Ms. Lucier asked whether it falls under the foot candle restrictions. The representative said there are very few instances where it does exceed 25, and they are all under the canopy. The pumps are internally illuminated for the price and the pay at the pump screen. Lights are recessed under the canopy and it goes directly down. Mr. Burriss asked whether their plan considers all sources of lighting, i.e., light coming through the window, or just under the canopy. The representative said the company who prepared this takes all lighting into consideration. The group wanted more information. Mr. Salvage thought Speedway should get a copy of what we approved for Certified. (6) Signage: There will not be signage on the pumps. Mr. Burriss said we do not allow products to be stored outside, i.e., mulch. There are to be no pop machines outside. The representative asked for one ice machine and propane sales and Mr. Salvage thought they may need to enclose them. The ice machine should have no signage. Changeable message signs are not permitted. The application now asks for two signs: An internally lit freestanding sign, which would need a variance, and a large wall sign, internally lit, over the door with the moving “S” logo. The frame is aluminum with a plastic cap. The part under the S is solid, not glass. The architect explained the pediment, the narrow band, and the column caps. Color samples will be provided. Mr. Parris didn’t really want to discuss how different this proposal is from the normal Speedway proposal. (7) Dumpster: Mr. Dorman asked whether the covering for the dumpster is opaque and similar to other sites and was told they can do anything we like. Mr. Salvage said to put it in the back with a door and provide details to us. (8) Parking: Resolve the right-in, left-out situation. The representative said the sidewalk would have to be on top of a utility easement. The drawing will provide sidewalks 5’ behind the Cherry Valley Road tree lawn. (9) Open Space: The applicants are planning to dedicate 12 acres in the floodplain to the Licking Land Trust. (10) Landscape Plan: Mr. Burriss would like to see more detail on the Landscape Plan in terms of species and type and planting heights. There will be potted flowers with irrigation. (11) Other Details: Mr. Burriss thought additional investigation should be done to surrounding water. The representative said they can provide EPA information. <> The Engineer is to provide geologic water pumping details. <> The rear entrance is used only for emergencies; which needs to be addressed. <> Mr. Burriss preferred the columns to be fluted, and the architect said OK but they are trying to give a contemporary appearance. <> Edge of canopy should be of a different color. What is needed next? Color samples, traffic engineers for traffic discussion, and Joe Hickman and the Law Director should be invited.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-081 PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Davis) AND A, B,AND C (McKivergin, Brubaker, Mitchell) UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF JUNE 21ST. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 10:45 p.m. Next Meetings: July 8th and July 22nd

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 6/10/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION June 10, 2002 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld, Richard Main Members Absent: None Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Nancy Graham, Jerry Martin, Carlos Brezina, Mark Evans, Jim Hartzler, Douglas Mill, Curt Shonk Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

The minutes of May 30th were postponed until the next meeting.

Old Business:

Village Brewing Company, 128 East Broadway – Two-Story Addition

 Mr. Dorman explained that the application is for a new two-story addition and for demolishing the existing rear addition in order to meet building code. There will be an enclosure for the stairwell and the dumpster, and the fire escape will be relocated to 33’ north of its present location in the little alleyway. The re-striping of the parking lot will allow more space for a fire lane. The lot coverage is under the maximum. Mr. Brezina presented the new drawings with the proposed changes. They will put the air conditioning units on the roof, and only a little bit of it will be visible. He showed where the dumpster would be and discussed the proposed building materials. Mr. Parris asked whether he has consulted with the neighbors regarding the location of the stairs, and Mr. Martin said that the Deli would not have a problem with storage below the stairs, and moving the woodshed would be ok too. Nancy Graham said Jerry Martin has done an excellent job of addressing all their concerns and she now approves of the plans. Ben Rader had called Mr. Salvage with his approval earlier in the day. They are still thinking about the colors and Mr. Brezina showed color samples. There will be smooth-face block for the window infills. The lintels are to be a different color. Colors to be chosen from are Oberfields #204, 208, 212, and 206. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-062, FOR THE VILLAGE BREWING COMPANY, WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1) THAT THE APPLICANT HAS CHOSEN OBERFIELDS #204 SPLIT BLOCK FOR THE WALLS AND THE SMOOTH SIDE OF THE SAME #204 FOR THE WINDOW INFILLS; 2) THE APPLICANT WILL BE USING EITHER OBERFIELDS #208, 212, OR 206 COLORS FOR THE LINTELS AND THOSE WILL BE USING THE SMOOTH SIDE OF THE PRODUCT; AND 3) THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS APPROVING THE DRAWING AS REVISED JUNE 6, 2002. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Woeste Real Estate, 142 East Broadway – Existing Signage Redesign

 Mr. Dorman said Woeste Real Estate has merged with Prudential Residential One Realtors, and they need to change their signage to reflect that. They want to maintain the dark green as on the existing signs, and the lettering and graphics will be white. The sign over the awning is 8’x1’4” and the other, on the Prospect side of the building, would be 16”x24”. Both signs would use the existing wood trim and would match the old ones as closely as possible. A variance is needed because of the change in typography and text as well as the graphics. The variance is for the number of wall signs per building. This would be a total of three, given the wall sign we approved earlier for ZoomwerX. This was similar to the situation for Unizan Bank. Mr. Salvage wondered whether the sign code included instructions for corner businesses. Mr. Wilkenfeld applied the criteria for variances to the application:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Special circumstances are the nature of the building on the corner. It has two faces and multiple tenants. B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. Any number of buildings downtown has similar circumstances and we have granted similar variances, such as Unizan Bank and the Woeste building itself. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. They result from the nature of the building. D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. He can no longer use the old signs. If we deny this variance, we would be denying the applicant equal treatment. We are not changing the total number of signs or sizes or color or appearance of existing signs. E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. It would not.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR APPLICATION #02-075 TO ALLOW FOR TWO WALL SIGNS. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-075 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT HE WILL BE ATTEMPTING TO USE THE CURRENT SIGN FRAME AND TRIM TREATMENTS AROUND THOSE; AND 2) THAT THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE COLORS WILL BE THE SAME AS THE EXISTING SIGNS AND THAT THE LETTERING AND GRAPHICS WILL BE EITHER WHITE OR IVORY. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Jim Hartzler, 203 North Pearl Street – Retaining Wall

 Mr. Dorman explained there is a drainage problem, and the applicant wants to construct a retaining wall of historic foundation stone with a drainage line at the rear of the wall to be directed toward North Plum Street. Jim Hartzler said they are very anxious to take ownership. The major problem (which they knew about when they bought the property) is the drainage problems. The Stoneburners put in a sump pump, but what the applicants’ desire is to construct a retaining wall on the property line with a drainage line directed toward the storm sewer on North Plum Street. For materials, they studied, (1) Split-face block, but that would not look good on an old house; (2) Briar Hill, but they were not happy with that either, or (3) the contractor said he has a source from old sandstone foundation stones that will match the uphill house. They had a legal survey and boundary survey, and the drainage line will be on their property. Some of the drain water comes from the Murr house next door, and they will address that also. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether Ms. Murr has been consulted, and the answer was yes. Mr. Hartzler did not ask her specifically whether she wanted to tie into this, but it would be his intent to try to offer her the solution at no cost. She does not mind the wall. He wants her downspouts to enter the drainage. Ms. Lucier asked whether the retaining wall stops before the sidewalk, and the answer was yes. It will go behind the tree and taper to the sidewalk. You can see that there was probably a retaining wall there at one time; you can see stones at the rear of the property.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-076 AS PRESENTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Bryn Du Woods - Phase V

 The representatives from Bryn Du explained their intention for the layout with the same number of lots (25); they have been widened to 55’. Mr. Parris asked about the easement to Fanchion Lewis Park and was shown where there would be pathway connections. Mr. Salvage asked whether final plans have been drawn, and the representatives wanted input from the Planning Commission before final plans would be drawn. These homes will not be visible from Newark-Granville Road. In answer to a question, Bob Kent said they are in no hurry to get started and probably they will wait until next year.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Brew’s) AND A AND B (Woeste and Hartzler) UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF JUNE 7TH. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Closing Comments: 

A. Mr. Salvage had asked Mr. Dorman to locate minutes where we set up procedures for handling applications {see Minutes of February 22, 1999}. We may be looking at some complicated applications in the future and we should have a procedure in mind. Mr. Salvage provided a similar statement. Mr. Parris is not averse to having a procedure, and it’s within our right to set conditions at a meeting. He is not objecting to doing this but wants to look at it closer. Mr. Salvage said we want to agree with procedures to follow. He is not sure we need to summarize this. Mr. Wilkenfeld thinks this is OK. Mr. Parris said at a meeting where we foresee that this is the case, we should let people know of our intentions. These should be guidelines rather than procedures. Mr. Main said we want to avoid having a person with an opinion talking directly to the applicant rather than to the Planning Commission. Everyone needs time to talk but must not steal other people’s time. Mr. Burriss recalls one time when someone was addressing something longer than 3 minutes, with photographs. When a person has a valid point to make and a prepared presentation, he should have more time. Mr. Salvage said we can informally extend time limits. Ms. Lucier suggested putting the guidelines next to the Agendas on the sign-in table. We are allowed to make our own guidelines, under the Charter. The consensus of the group was to follow these guidelines, and Mr. Salvage summarized: (1) We call them guidelines; (2) We will act within 45 days; (3) We can table or remove at applicant’s request; and (4) The Chair can extend the 3-minute limit.

 B. Mr. Burriss asked about the Recognition or Award for Excellent Applications, and Mr. Dorman said he is still looking for a model from German Village, Hudson, and other places.

Adjournment: 8:40 p.m. Next Meetings: June 24 and July 8

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 5/30/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION May 30, 2002 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Richard Main Members Absent: Barb Lucier, Carl Wilkenfeld Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Ben and Nadine Rader, Betty Morrison, Mary Bibee, Nancy Graham, Jerry Martin, Carlos Brezina, Jeff Decker Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of April 22, 2002: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Minutes of May 1, 2002: MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Minutes of May 13, 2002: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Jeff Decker, 328 East Elm Street – New Brick Patio and Arbor

 Mr. Dorman described the plans for the replacement of the dilapidated porch and patio with a new brick patio and 12’ tall arbor. The arbor would be constructed of treated lumber and painted to match the house. The previous porch has already been demolished and approval is required at this time. Jeff Decker showed the Commission where the patio would be located and said it will be slightly larger than the previous porch. The ends of the lumber of the arbor will be faced with another piece of lumber. Mr. Burriss thinks the project would be complementary to the house, and Mr. Parris said it would be a nice addition to the yard.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-070 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Business & Professional Association – Sidewalk Signs for GBPA Sponsored Events

 Mr. Dorman explained the signage desired by the group for their three events: (1) Farmers’ Market, 3 white sidewalk signs to be set up on Saturday mornings, June 15 through October 5 at the Woeste Corner, the Centenary corner, and at Park National Bank; (2) Granville Garden Tour, 2 signs to be used in conjunction with a poster for the Farmers’ Market. One side of the sidewalk sign would be for the Garden Tour and the other for Farmers’ Market. These signs are to be set up at Woeste and at Park National Bank, May 30 through June 15, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; (3) Street Scenes, both sides of 2 sandwich boards set up every day June 14 through June 27, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Woeste corner and at Park National Bank. MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-071 WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT THE FARMERS’ MARKET SIDEWALK SIGN WILL BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GRANVILLE GARDEN TOUR SIGN AND THAT IT WILL BE DISPLAYED UP THROUGH JUNE 15TH. A SEPARATE SANDWICH BOARD FOR THE FARMERS’ MARKET WILL BE DISPLAYED ONLY ON SATURDAY MORNINGS AT THE LOCATIONS AS PRESENTED. THE FARMERS’ MARKET SIGN WILL BE AS IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THE APPLICANT SUPPLIED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Betty Morrison – Antique Show Signs

 The applicant is seeking signs advertising the upcoming antique show:

(1) A free-standing, 4’x3’ advertising sign at New Burg Street at 661 is to direct the public to the new location. It will be a white sign with red and black letters. (2) A 2’x3’ sign at Dr. Scarpetti’s location at Westgate and in front of the IGA parking lot. It will be a white sign with red and black letters.

Because of the construction at the high school, more directional signs are requested for the new location. Due to the fact that the media was given the wrong dates by the Chamber of Commerce, it is crucial to set up the signs as soon as possible. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-072 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Village Brewing Company, 128 East Broadway – Two-Story Addition

 Mr. Dorman explained that the application is for a new two-story addition and for demolishing the existing rear addition in order to meet building code. A 4’ wide fire escape stairwell would be at the rear. Another proposal is for the re-striping of the parking lot to allow more space. Mr. Brezina showed new drawings with changes. He showed where the fire door, grease pit and holding tank and dumpster would be. The dumpster would have to slide out to be dumped. Mr. Salvage asked for citizens’ comments because the plans before us tonight are not the ones submitted with the application. Ben Rader asked why not put the stairs at the side rather than the back, and Mr. Salvage said they will be recessed. Mr. Rader has a problem with the stairwell at the back and the rearranged parking lot. They have not talked to the neighbors about the project. Nancy Graham is also upset about not having been consulted. Although she is excited that they are expanding and are doing good business, she is concerned about the jutting out and that makes it hard for all, especially trucks. If we are going to lose even one parking spot, she does support the project. Mr. Salvage asked whether there are any comments from the Fire Department. Mr. Dorman said the Fire Chief was at the BZBA meeting and they are concerned because there would not be enough width for a fire lane. Mr. Salvage is not comfortable with moving ahead with this tonight, particularly with the new plans; there has been insufficient time for the Village Planner to review them as well as the neighboring property owners. The neighbors are very concerned, and do not know what they are looking at. Mr. Parris thinks we owe it to the public to have a final set of plans in front of us. However, if there are any discussions we could have tonight that might move things along, that would be appropriate. He asked about space in the alley, and Jerry Martin said there is an easement for the alley between the buildings. The Arants own the alley, but they say there is an easement. The easement does not apply in the rear, and he has not had conversations about it. Mr. Burriss asked if the fire stairwell could have something under it, and Mr. Brezina said maybe. Mr. Burriss thought if something were able to be worked out where the Broadway Deli lost the woodshed but gained space under the fire stairwell in the alley, that could let them put their storage under the staircase. The woodshed does not enhance the alley. If we could put the fire stairs in the alley and still provide storage for them that might work. Our charge is to improve and enhance things for everybody, not to make things worse. The alley is an eyesore and we understand that and we can make a clean service space if we separate the front part from the rear. What would the Deli’s objections be to putting the stairway in the back of the alley? He thinks the details of the fire escape can be worked out and he would like to see windows across the second floor. With too many unanswered questions on the table, Jerry Martin requested tabling the application. Mr. Salvage wanted official notice sent to everybody when this is on the agenda regarding changes in the parking lot—Greg Ream, Ben Rader, the Arants, and the Fire Department. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-062 AT THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE B, C AND D (Decker, GBPA and Morrison) AS PRESENTED, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF MAY 23RD. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:35 p.m. Next Meeting: June 10 and June 24

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 5/13/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION May 13, 2002 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld, Richard Main Members Absent: None Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Eloise DeZwarte, Constance Barsky, Jerry Martin, Jonathan Wocher, John Stephens, Brian Parsley, Dave and Cindy Farley, Carlos Brezina, Judy Duncan, Leta and Greg Ross, Flo and Bill Hoffman Citizens’ Comments: 1) Eloise DeZwarte – 338 East College Street: Ms. DeZwarte raised a concern about the unfinished state of the garage project that was approved for Deb Hibler over two years ago. As she understood it, the applicant had 1 year to start and 2 years to finish the project. Mr. Dorman explained that the time limit on her permit expired and that he requested she submit a letter to the Village Manager requesting a time extension, which she did and that she was given to the end of May to finish. The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of April 8, 2002 (This happened after the 7:00 work session): 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2002 AS CORRECTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session (Started early at 7:00 p.m.):

Village of Granville – Continue Discussion of Proposed Zoning Code Changes

 The Law Director started right into the discussion of the proposed changes, on page 21, where the Planning Commission left off at the special May 1st meeting:

 Page 21: Mostly code revisions Lines 18 through 23 – Attempting to clean up the language Line 42 – The words “and recreation,” are being deleted Page 22: Line 52 – The word “Architectural,” is being deleted Page 23: Line 1 – The word “modifications,” is being deleted and “alterations,” is being added Line 23 - The word “modifications,” is being deleted and “alterations,” is being added Page 24: Line 3 – The word “Architectural,” is being deleted Line 30 – The words “and site plan,” are being added. Lines 31 and 32 – The words “recommendation for,” are being deleted in recognition that Planning Commission is actually approving the projects Lines 42 through 44 – Allowing the Zoning Inspector to approve minor modifications rather than the Planning Commission having to approve them

 Mr. Parris asked if there could be a mechanism for the Zoning Inspector to report back to the Planning Commission on the modifications he/she has approved. Mr. Crites said yes, and that the intent of this change is not to decrease the Zoning Inspector’s communication with the Planning Commission. Mr. Salvage said that he wants the Zoning Inspector to still have the latitude to bring any modification back to the Planning Commission if he/she is uncomfortable making the decision.

 Page 25: Line 11 – The words “and approval,” are added Lines 51 and 52 – The Planning Commission is actually approving the projects Page 27: An appellate procedure for the denial of a demolition permit is added Pages 28 and 29: The changes on these pages are code revisions Page 30: Language is inserted consistent with the Crossen Case, relative to the development plan approval procedure being legislative rather than administrative Lines 10 through 14 – This language is to cover the number of situations where PUDs have no approved site plan

 Mr. Crites added, regarding Page 30, that it is common practice to not approve PDDs and/or PUDs without: (1) Approval of a development plan; and (2) Changing the zoning map.

 Page 31: The changes here are mostly code revisions Lines 44 through 48 – The “fast food” definition is removed and placed under the definition section Page 32: The changes on this page are code revisions Page 33: (b) is former (c) and the rest are code revisions Page 34: There is an unnumbered or unlettered paragraph that has been made (c), and (d) becomes the large table Pages 36 and 37: The language is changed to allow the Zoning Inspector the ability to approve minor modifications in the PUD Page 38: Line 25 – The words “such as,” are being deleted to make it consistent with other sections Page 39: The changes here are code revisions, in lines 11, 13 and 16 the word “site,” is being added in front of plan Page 40: Line 23 – The word “Architectural,” is being deleted Lines 45 through 51 – Section (d), Allowing the Zoning Inspector the ability to approve minor modifications after the site plan has been approved

 The Planning Commission members wanted to revisit Page 16. Mr. Crites explained that there are two types of variances, and use variances are not permitted. The new standard for area variances is “practical difficulty.” Mr. Crites said that after the BZBA reviews the changes he will put together a red line copy of the comprehensive changes to the proposal. Mr. Salvage revisited a concern he had on Page 18, relative to the BZBA being allowed to apply conditions regarding the character of the structures and he feels that the language may be stepping on the powers and authorities of the Planning Commission. This concluded the Planning Commission’s review of the proposed zoning code changes and the regular meeting proceeded with the review of the April 8th minutes. 

New Business:

Eloise DeZwarte, 338 East College Street – Extend Existing Fence in East Side Yard

 Mr. Dorman introduced the project first with a slide showing the house at the subject property. Next he described the project in that the applicant wants to extend the existing 6’ lattice fence, 17’4” to the north, and that additional plantings will be installed around the new fence. He then put up several pictures for the discussion of the project. Ms. DeZwarte explained that in 1994 the Law’s wanted to move their driveway over to the lot line and she was ok with that as long as he put up screening. Ms DeZwarte explained that she planted a vine around it. Mr. Burriss asked if the finish of the extension will be the same as the existing and he was told yes. Mr. Burriss wondered if it would be ok if that was made a condition of approval and Ms. DeZwarte said ok.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-059 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE PROPOSED FENCE BE FINISHED THE SAME AS THE EXISTING FENCE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Newkirk Design Studio, 226 East Broadway – Install a Projecting Sign

 Mr. Dorman introduced the project first with a slide showing the building at the subject property. Next he described the sign in that it will be similar to the existing “Crown & Cushion” sign; it is to be 30” wide x 42” tall; it would be a wood sign with flat letters; and it will have a cream background with a watermark image and a dark green border and lettering. Mr. Dorman then showed a slide that simulated what the sign would look like on the building. He then redisplayed the slide with the picture of the sign and its details for the discussion of the project. Mr. Newkirk explained that the watermark image will be darker than it is portrayed in the presentation. Mr. Wilkenfeld questioned the nature of the watermark and was told that that Ms. Newkirk’s salon uses Aveda© products and that the company gave her several acceptable images and she choose the one proposed because those products have a wheat base and the image depicts an agricultural setting.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-060 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Brian and Stephanie Parsley, 316 West Maple Street – Build Full Front Porch and Other Exterior Improvements

 Mr. Dorman introduced the project first with a slide showing the house at the subject property. Next he described the full front porch portion of the project. The plan includes remove the existing partial front porch and replacing it with a 27’ wide full porch that is to have 6” pine flooring; the porch would have 5” x 5” square posts with square-styled balustrades; crown moldings will be installed under the eaves and at the top of the porch skirt; there would be lattice under the porch skirt; and two sets of steps on either side of the porch. The second part of the plan is to put new siding on the whole structure. The existing siding will be replaced with 6 ½” beaded vinyl siding, sage in color with white trim. Crown molding will be installed at the top of the walls under the soffit. Gutters and downspouts will be added to the house and an octagon-shaped accent window will be installed on the east facade. Next the applicant is proposing a 450 square foot rear patio which would be installed near the northwest corner of the house and would have two (2) walkways between the two existing gates. The patio will be stamped concrete with a slate pattern and will be moss green and beige in color. The fourth project in the application is to install a retaining wall along the east part of the front yard to level the yard. The front walk will be rerouted to service both the east side and front walk steps and the new east steps on the front porch. New planter beds will be installed in front of the new porch and on the west side of the house. In addition the east side steps will be reconstructed to align with the new porch and to improve climbing angles and tread depth. In addition the applicant is proposing some improvements to the lower roofs on the east side. The project includes leveling and realigning the east lower roofs to create a single fascia line. All lower roofs will be re-shingled and the primary roof will be re-shingled from slate to asphalt shingle. Finally, the applicant is proposing to affix a stone veneer to the existing exposed foundation. Several questions were asked relative to the proximity of the projects and Mr. Parsley showed where each of the questioned projects would be located on the pictures Mr. Dorman provided for discussion. Mr. Parris asked about the siding on the house and Mr. Parsley said it is 20 years old and in bad shape. Mr. Salvage asked about the plans for the new porch. Mr. Parsley explained that the porch would be anywhere from 5 to 13’ in depth. Ms. Lucier asked if the front door was being moved and she was told no. Mr. Salvage asked about the trim at the top of the porch. Mr. Burriss began a discussion about the architectural details of the new porch versus the original detailing of the partial porch. Mr. Parsley explained that they were trying to accomplish a simpler architecture on the new porch. He accounted how he drove around town and looked at many different porches and found that half the porches he saw have square balusters. He discussed the size and rooflines that he found and how he and his wife both grew up with full front porches and that is the feeling they are trying to achieve. Ms. Lucier explained how when she screened in her porch they used some of the old wood from the original porch as decorative molding on the new porch. Mr. Parsley noted that the current posts are fluted and wondered that if he were to flute the new posts if that was a step in the right direction. Mr. Parris said you could start off with posts that have that detail or use a smaller post and wrap it with detail. Mr. Burriss noted that there are a couple porch examples in town that utilized inexpensive details. It was decided that the application could be approved pending additional front porch detail drawings being submitted and approved by the Village Planner and Mr. Burriss.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-063 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT RETURNS TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND MR. BURRISS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE FRONT PORCH DETAILS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dave and Cindy Farley, 228 Sunrise Street – New Single Family Residence

 Mr. Dorman introduced the project first by showing the existing house at the subject property. He then explained the proposed house: that it will replace the fire damaged home; that it will be a full two-stories with a gable peak; and that it will have a first floor footprint of 1,826 square feet. Mr. Dorman then put up several pictures and sketches for the discussion of the project. Ms. Farley explained that there are a couple proposed window changes and then shared a trace drawing of the elevations that showed the changes. Mr. Burriss asked to have the applicant show him the footprint of the existing house on the site plan. Mr. Burriss wondered what the height is of the house on the lot to the south, and Mr. Dorman did not know. Mr. Burriss asked about the proposed exterior materials, and Ms. Farley said it is proposed to be wood siding, taupe in color with white trim. Ms. Farley then showed Ms. Lucier the proposed window changes. Mr. Salvage asked about whether there will be a garage and/or a driveway and Ms. Farley said that there is an existing driveway between the school and the house and that a garage is not being proposed. Mr. Salvage asked about a landscape plan and Ms. Farley said they do not have one yet but will submit it when they do.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-064, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT THE WOOD SIDING BE PAINTED TAUPE WITH WHITE TRIM; 2) THAT THE WINDOW MODIFICATIONS BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED; 3) THAT THE ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION WHERE THE SITE PLAN SHOWS IT TO BE UNEXCAVATED IS APPROVED; AND 4) THAT A LANDSCAPE PLAN BE BROUGHT BACK FOR REVIEW BY THE TREE & LANDSCAPE COMMISSION AND REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Fackler Country Gardens, 1098 Newark-Granville Road – Install a Temporary Contractor’s Sign

 Mr. Dorman introduced the application first by showing a picture of the work site as it currently exists. Mr. Dorman then explained the proposed sign and showed the actual sign to the Commission. The sign is to be 3 square feet installed at 3’ tall, about 13’ from the pavement’s edge at about the middle of the lot. The sign will have a white background with black lettering and a black and green logo. The Commission had no questions.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-065 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Work Sessions:

Granville Ross IGA – Continue Discussion of Parking Lot Improvements

 The work session focused on the design of the ATM loop design, the sidewalk from Main Street and alternative configurations for the sidewalk. Mr. Salvage noted that at one point Certified Oil was willing to participate in the cost for the sidewalks and Dick Schulze (there representing Certified) said they are no longer willing to participate. Mr. Burriss initiated a discussion about bicycle parking. Dick Schulze from Certified noted that they would be installing a bike rack at their site. Mr. Salvage asked about any Village specifications for sidewalks and Mr. Dorman said he would check into it. Mr. Burriss encouraged the Rosses to create as much separation between the sidewalk and the approach as possible. A discussion ensued about how to do that with the limited amount of green space between the edge of the approach pavement and the IGA sign. At the end of the discussion the Planning Commission members felt as though the Rosses could come back with a formal application.

Speedway/ SuperAmerica – Continue Discussion of Proposed Gas Station

 The representatives for Speedway identified themselves as Jonathan Wocher (Planning Consultant for McBride Dale Clarion), John Stephens (Project Manager for Marathon Ashland Oil), and Buck Withers (Design Consultant). Jonathan Wocher started the discussion by outlining the changes that were made to the site plan since the last work session. Mr. Wilkenfeld questioned the location of the parking spaces and noted that the code said they must be behind the front facade, and Mr. Wocher explained that his understanding was that they could be just behind the front facade line. Buck Withers explained the changes to the design of the building since the last work session. Ms. Lucier noted that the gas station representatives said this is an unusually large lot for such a development, and wondered if the proposed store was also unusually large. Mr. Stephens said that they have put similarly sized stations on much smaller lots. Ms. Lucier requested that Mr. Stephens provide Mr. Dorman with a list of locations in Columbus so he can get pictures. Ms. Lucier also questioned the number of dispensers and was told six (6). Mr. Salvage said from his experience that the proposed lot is very large for this application and that the industry is going to a 6 dispenser station. Ms. Barsky (an audience member) asked how many cars could be serviced by the pumps at any given time and was told twelve (12). She asked about the size of the entire tract that Speedway owns and was told 17 acres. Ms. Barsky then wanted to know how big the remaining two buildable lots were. Mr. Stephens did not know off hand but promised that information at the next meeting. Mr. Salvage requested a site plan showing the entire tract. Ms. Barsky asked the representatives if they were aware of the last architectural plans and said that the company went through a lot of trouble drawing plans were architecturally approved. She concluded her statements by stating that she just wanted to alert the Speedway representatives of citizens that are very concerned about the proposal. Mr. Wilkenfeld then wanted to make a general statement. He said that he is concerned about the effect this plan will have on traffic patterns. There is already a severe problem on SR-16 and he is not sure if anything will fix it short of an overpass. He said that his concern is that traffic oriented business may exacerbate the problem. Mr. Stephens responded by saying that Bob Evans and Speedway split the cost of road improvements to South Cherry Valley Road several years ago. Mr. Salvage responded that the development would generate very little destination traffic, but that it would take advantage of drive-by traffic, and that traffic issues should be addressed as part of the application. Mr. Wocher appreciated Mr. Wilkenfeld’s concern but felt that any existing deficiencies are not the responsibility of the land owner. Mr. Wilkenfeld countered that the Village Council has to take these things into account for the safety of the residents. Mr. Wocher revisited his concern about placing the sidewalk on any utility easements and both Mr. Salvage and Mr. Parris questioned why they pushed it back so far. Mr. Salvage suggested placing the sidewalk 5’ off the curb. Mr. Wocher cut to the chase and said that they were concerned about there responsibility for replacing any damage done to the sidewalk by utility work. Mr. Salvage suggested deeding the land to the Village. Mr. Burriss concluded the discussion by saying that the problem exists either way and that the further back the sidewalk is located the better and that we are all in agreement that the sidewalk needs to be moved back. Mr. Salvage asked for discussion on the architecture of the building. Mr. Withers noted that the sense he received from the last meeting is that they were getting to close to the Certified Oil expression and that another expression should be looked at. Mr. Burriss said perhaps a marriage of the previous scheme and this new scheme would be best. Much discussion ensued about the windows, the columns on the canopy as well as other details. Mr. Salvage then asked for anymore discussion on the site plan. Discussion ensued on issues relative to the landscaping, size of the building and questions as to the look of the building based on what the code specifies. The discussion ended and Speedway indicated that they may be ready to submit a formal application and the Commission said they would be happy to do as many work sessions as Speedway wanted.

Village Brewing Company, 128 East Broadway – Begin Discussion of Proposed Kitchen Addition

 Jerry Martin opened the discussion with an outline of his proposed changes including going from a 1.5 story kitchen to a full two-story addition. Mr. Salvage said that the weakness in the plan is the stairway in the rear. Mr. Rader (audience member) chimed in and said that he is against the stairway in the back. Mr. Parris wondered if the stairwell had to be permanent or if it could a drop down and he was told it had to be permanent. Further discussion ensued on the project, but most of it centered on trying to relocate the stairwell from the rear of the building.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A THROUGH D UNDER NEW BUSINESS (DeZwarte, Newkirk, Parsley, Farley, and Fackler) AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF MAY 9, 2002. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 10:30 p.m.

Next Meetings: May 28, 2002 June 10, 2002 Respectfully submitted, Seth Dorman 

Planning Minutes 5/1/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION May 1, 2002 Special Meeting on Zoning Ordinances Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld, Richard Main Members Absent: None Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Jim Gorry, Mike Crites Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Village of Granville – Proposed Zoning Code Changes

 Mr. Dorman said that last year we had some talks with the Law Director, and recognizing the fact that the zoning code is a dynamic document, several problems need to be addressed. The following comments refer to the possible changes to the zoning code. Law Director Mike Crites said people have mentioned things in the code they wanted him to look at, and he enlisted the help of Attorney Jim Gorry, who has a wealth of experience in zoning ordinances. He has done a comprehensive view and will go through it item by item. Mr. Crites thinks we have gone too long without an update, and he suggests that every time Village Council looks at the Master Plan we ought to look at the zoning code also. He suggested doing a review of the Master Plan every three years. Mr. Gorry said the major deficiency was in enforcement policies, which needed to be simplified and modernized. No changes were suggested to development regulations, but he looked at accessory structures on a lot, etc. Other changes were to add definitions or for simplification.

1133.03: Purpose. The Planning Commission members asked that “within ten days” be added to this paragraph. In the past, the Manager could request an appeal; Mr. Gorry is suggesting he can demand an appeal. 

1135.01: Definitions. The sale of alcohol is an accessory use in a convenience store, for example. He removed the word “permanent” from definition of structure. A shed on blocks will be called a structure and subject to the zoning restrictions. A driveway is not a structure. A concrete pad upon which a recreational vehicle rests would be a structure. A patio could be treated as an accessory structure.

1137.01: He has tightened up PUD regulations; the old process was unusual. Now a PUD can be subject to a referendum.

1137.02: Enforcement. (c) Is a new hearing procedure. (h) We need a way to fine violators.

1137.03: Tightens “permit” language.

1137.06: Simplifies Occupancy Permits. We will change Zoning & Architectural Permits to Zoning Permits. 1137.09: Penalties. Add “per day” after $500.00. This must be enforced by Mayor’s Court. The Village Planner can send a letter telling a person he is in violation of the zoning code. The violator has (x) number of days to comply, and if he/she doesn’t, another letter goes out giving a few more days. The Law Director then sends a letter, and if that doesn’t work the violator would be cited to Mayor’s Court. We can issue stop construction order or revoke the permit. The Village Planner can issue a citation. Village Council can suggest an in-house policy in enforcement. Mr. Dorman likes to have flexibility here.

1137.10: This is to tighten up the zoning code. Due process applications. We need to clean up our application form to be sure the address therein is the legal one to whom we can write if necessary. (c) Add “business” after (2). 3 days is even better.

1141.04: We never had a Village Heritage Overlay District. It’s called the Transportation Corridor Overlay District.

1145.3: Add “and” after the comma.

1145.04: Come back to this section for further review.

1147.03: Impose conditions on a variance. There are Use Variances and Area Variances. Use Variances allow BZBA to change the use (spot zoning). Area Variances are variances from development regulations—yard setbacks, lot coverage, etc. Use Variances are granted for substantial hardship. Eliminate the word “hardship” and add “practical difficulties.” This section is less strict and allows more flexibility. 

1157.15: PUDs should require site development plan in the village for undeveloped land gained by annexation. 

1157.16: A hodgepodge, but useful. 

Adjournment: 9:30 a.m. Next Meeting: May 8, 8 a.m. (Zoning Changes) and May 13 (regular meeting)

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 4/22/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 2002 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: Richard Main Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Janet Clayton, Mindi Wilson, Brian Sutliff, R.A. Van Meter, Steven Stein, Evelyn Frolking, Brian Koker, Joe Zupsic, John Stephens, Jonathan Wocher, Phil Watts, Douglas Mill, Darren Kennedy, Mark Cobun, Dave Farley, Mistie Berschet, Jim Gorry Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of April 8, 2002: Consideration of Minutes was postponed in order to allow more time to read them.

Old Business:

Janet Clayton, 119 East Elm Street (Rear) – Sidewalk, Wall and Window Signs

 At the previous meeting, the sandwich board was found to be located in an unsafe and inappropriate place and the applicant was asked to see if she could hang up a sign on the wall. Now she is applying for three signs: (1) an 8 square foot coated wood sandwich board on the south side of the rear entrance on Main Street in the right of way; (2) a wood wall sign placed under the existing “parking in rear” sign on the northeast corner of building; and (3) a 2.4 square foot oval window sign showing the logo, double-sided and hung inside on a chain. Mr. Dorman thought the only variance would be for the number of wall signs. Consensus of the group had no problem with this sign; it’s a difficult facade to deal with. Mr. Salvage thought the applicants would be better served with a projecting sign. If the sign is double- sided, the surface coverage would be doubled. Such a sign could be single-sided. Mr. Salvage would want to make such a sign contingent upon the approval of the landlord and the Village Planner’s approval of the drawing.

 Mr. Wilkenfeld applied the criteria for variances to the application:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The fact that we asked the applicant to move the location as a safety issue; and the unique nature of the multi-tenant building. B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. Applicants would not be able to advertise their business as others do in the same building. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicants did not build the building. D. That the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. If we denied this application, it would confer privilege to others in the building, and we are trying to be consistent. E. That the granting of the variance would in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. True, we are worried about protecting the safety of pedestrians and vehicles.

MR WILKENFELD MOVED THAT WE GRANT A VARIANCE ON THIS SIGN PACKAGE AS IT MEETS ALL FIVE CRITERIA AS PUT FORTH IN THE ZONING CODE. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-039, GIVING THE APPLICANT THE OPTION OF INSTALLING A PROJECTING SIGN WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE LANDLORD AND PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Doug and Mistie Berschet, 326 West Maple Street – Modification Application

 The applicants are seeking a modification to allow for the removal of the old and construction of a new unpainted pressure-treated deck and to build retaining walls in the west and rear yards. The previously approved plans are finished and there are several things they would like to do now: (1) have a new deck on the east side, 26’x14.9’; (2) add a stamped concrete pad to the east of the deck; (3) install a landscaping area at the rear of the house, which would be framed by a decorative stone wall 2’ in height on the west side tapering to the ground on the east side ; and (4) 2’ timber retaining wall on the west property line to prevent erosion and they will add aggregate and stepping stones. Ms. Berschet stated that there was a deck there previously, but they got into foundation issues and termite damage. The entire yard would be enclosed by a white picket fence and there would be a matching gate between the gravel driveway and the concrete; the fence existed previously and they would just be reinstalling it.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THIS IS A MINOR MODIFICATION. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION #00-137 AS PRESENTED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Darren Kennedy, 142 ½ East Broadway – Change of Use

 The applicant wishes to change the use from an apartment to a computer video and graphics production studio. Mr. Kennedy said the space has been both an office space and apartment over the years. This is not retail space, and there would be no walk-in traffic; rather, he will meet clients there. MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-043 FOR A CHANGE OF USE. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Darren Kennedy, 142½ East Broadway – Wall Sign

 Mr. Dorman said the applicant wishes to install a wood wall sign, 3.5 square feet with no lighting. This would be under the “Woeste” sign on North Prospect Street. This is the second wall sign in this spot, but he needs a way to indicate his business is in the building. Mr. Wilkenfeld was a little concerned about the color and asked the applicant if he could soften and mute the white. Mr. Kennedy said yes. The final color can be approved by the Village Planner.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-044 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE WHITE BACKGROUND IS SOFTENED TO OFF- WHITE AND A REVISED DRAWING BE APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Milling Company, 280 South Main Street – Exterior Remodeling

 Mr. Dorman said the equipment was moved to the large building and now they want to repair the roof, replace the siding, and add a new overhang along the entire north side. Phil Watts said there will be a new overhang across the whole north side and the old siding will be taken down and replaced with metal siding. The new roof will be asphalt shingle. There will no longer be any trucks under there and no machinery; the building will be used for storage. They will remove the existing windows on the west facade, but are keeping the sliding doors on the north side. Mr. Burriss said this would be an improvement and asked about the rear roof and was told it would be metal, the same color as the siding and the same configuration. There will be no gutters and downspouts and there is sufficient drainage. No modifications will be made on the south side. Mr. Wilkenfeld said this is a minor modification to a fairly historic business, a disappearing way of life. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-046 AS PRESENTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dave and Cindy Farley, 228 Sunrise Street – Demolition

 Mr. Dorman said this is a demolition following a fire, but the shed will remain as is. The front setback would not be sufficient and will need variances for front and side setback and maybe lot coverage. The shed footprint will not change, so the setback violations are grandfathered. Mr. Salvage said that in order to maintain the integrity of the street, the front setback should be approved. Mr. Farley said they will put in a new foundation and home and raise the shed roof a little bit and make it an exercise room.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02- 050 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Mark Cobun, 324 Summit Street – Exterior Improvements

 Mr. Dorman came across this project mid-stream. The front porch has been completely reconstructed and the front facade replaced. So he called the applicant in to see the Planning Commission. Mr. Cobun stated that he straightened the front wall of the house and the wall had shifted off the foundation some, so he worked on the house. It was literally falling down. The porch continued around the side of the house and it was a poor renovation job. He jacked up the porch and saved the posts and duplicated them. Mr. Burriss and Mr. Salvage commended the applicant for his good work so far. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-051 FOR RENOVATIONS THAT HAVE OCCURRED TO DATE AND WITH A CONTINUANCE OF THOSE RENOVATIONS AS LONG AS THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Sessions: 

Welsh Hills School – Multi-Purpose Addition

 Architect Steve Stein said they have been working with the school on expanded facilities, programming, auditorium, and some athletics in a field house setting without bleachers. By placing the new building behind the existing school it will not be overwhelming or overpowering. They changed the elevation of the floor to be 3’ below the existing floor. The new roof will be 41’, and you will be able to see the roof from Newark-Granville Road. Mr. Salvage thought this will not hit you as far back from the road as this is. The roof will be metal with a portion in shingle. They wanted to continue the farmhouse design, following the example of the original farmhouse, moved to accommodate the school. Mr. Burriss encouraged them to be even more barn like in design. Dormers do more toward making it barn like than this design. Steve Stein said they are looking into this type of architecture. There were silos and cupolas at the previous barn location. A landscape architect is working on plantings. Mr. Wilkenfeld remarked that there are woods around the school so it will be partially screened from the road. The Comprehensive Plan recommends maintaining the rural heritage of Granville. He would like to see photos of the plans. Mr. Burriss applauded their articulation and colors and materials. Mr. Salvage stated the idea is well received.

Speedway/ SuperAmerica, Cherry Valley Road at State Route 16 – Proposed Gas Station

 Jonathan Wocher explained the project to date. The 17-acre site will be subdivided into four lots, with the gas station using 2.08 acres and one lot for dedicated green space. There will be an access drive. The gas station will be 3800 square feet with 6 pumps. Sidewalks will be along Cherry Valley Road. A landscape plan is being finalized with 110 shrubs and with small and larger trees. Parking for 12 cars is behind the building line. The dumpster will be enclosed. They meet the lot coverage requirement. The monument sign will be on northwest corner of the property. Buck Withers explained the building itself: it will have a hip roof with shingles, gray, variegated. There will be a cupola; the building will be brick with 6 coins in pilasters. Building will have cut stone detail. Mr. Parris thought there should be a wider turning radius and the representative thought that would be ok. Mr. Burriss thought the sidewalk should not be so close to the road. The building could be pushed back to allow more green space on the SR-16 side. The hedge could be moved to create more space. Be sure to screen the dumpster. Brick is not necessarily always better. You don’t necessarily have to copy Certified. Play down the scale of the canopy. Lighting of canopy must be toned down, with zero spillover of light. He should have a copy of the lighting requirements. The canopy does not need to be absolutely like the building, to break up the massing. Try brick and board and batten, fiberglass. Landscaping needs to have a creative use of trees and be consistent with the other lots. Plan a tree canopy on SuperAmerica Way. Jonathan Wocher said the lighting will be recessed under the canopy. Ms. Lucier asked about a Traffic Study, and Mr. Dorman said it is in the process of being reviewed by the engineers.

Brian Sutliff, 122 North Pearl Street – Proposed Zoning Amendment

 This is a follow-up from the last meeting. Mr. Sutliff said he sent a letter to Mr. Dorman about what he would like to do and to get advice from the Law Director, about whether he can use it as a home occupation without changing zoning, and the answer was no. Jim Gorry said rezoning is a two-step process: (1) Amend the map, placing the parcel in the VBD; and (2) determine the use category to put it in. If this is a financial planning consultant’s office, it goes into 1159.02 (a) (2) (c), Business and Professional Offices. You could also create a separate category “Financial Planning Office.” The standard presently would be to amend the map and designate a category and add it in one process. So the property can then be used for any of the other uses. You can limit the text. Can you restrict the future use? Mr. Gorry said the next guy can do anything in (c) and if he did not change anything he would not need approval from the Planning Commission. You can always impose new conditions when applications come in. To go from (c) to (d) an applicant would need a change of use. Mr. Salvage stated that it seems to make sense to come up with a new classification. His concern is still when the next business comes in there may be more traffic. Mr. Dorman said each new business gets a hearing on change of use. Ms. Lucier feels this should be looked at from a community point of view. She is not sure we do not have enough places zoned commercial already. Mr. Burriss said the GBPA is looking for more business space. Mr. Sutliff stated this is not a suitable rental for families with little children and would work better as a small business office. Mr. Van Meter, landlord, thought there is a big need for more office space. He would rather have a quiet professional working there than a family with little kids and all their toys out in the front yard. Mr. Parris agreed that it is not a suitable location for a family. Mr. Gorry said you could attempt to approve this with conditions, but that does not guarantee it would survive. Mr. Salvage said we can make a recommendation to Village Council to add a category “I,” and Mr. Gorry can put in any restrictions he wants. Courts frown on taking zoning away if it meets all conditions under the code. This could be a new conditional use, (b) (2) (f), Small Business. Mr. Salvage thought this was an access situation. Mr. Paris said Mr. Sutliff needs to talk to an attorney some more. They can figure out how to write this either under (I) or a conditional use that would hold up when tested. 

Village of Granville – Proposed Zoning Code Changes

Mr. Salvage said that considering the lateness of the hour, this should be postponed. The group agreed upon Wednesday, May 1, 8 a.m. to 10a.m.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE A AND B UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Clayton and Berschet) AND A, B, C, D, AND E UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF APRIL 18, 2002. MR BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 10:30 p.m.

Next Meetings: May 1, 8 a.m. (Zoning Changes) and May 13 (regular meeting)

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 4/8/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2002 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: Jack Burriss Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Tim Stypula, Bob Lavender, Mike Dager, Harvey Shapiro, Hugh Masterson, Kevin Reiner, Ken Dickerman, Janet Clayton, Mindi Wilson, Patrick Flynn, Brian Sutliff Citizens’ Comments: None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of March 25, 2002: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Kevin Reiner, 215 West Broadway – Third-Floor Dormers

Mr. Dorman explained that at our last meeting we tabled the application for dormers on the east and west sides, pending an elevation that showed how the dormers would look on the house. The dormers would have a flat gable roof with a 3/12 pitch and will be trimmed to match the existing house. Mr. Dorman talked with Mr. Burriss and he did have some concerns about the dormers. Mr. Burriss and Mr. Reiner met and the result is tonight’s revisions. Mr. Reiner explained the new window plan as a result of the meeting he had with Mr. Burriss. There will be a trio of arched windows on the east side. The roof pitch will be increased to be closer to the pitch of the main roof than the originally proposed 3/12 pitch. The windows will not be very visible from the street but could be seen from across the street. Mr. Parris appreciates the applicant will be making sacrifices on the inside to keep the integrity of the house on the outside. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether Mr. Burriss’ memo should be considered an addendum to this application, and the consensus was yes. Mr. Salvage thought the Planning Commission should have updated drawings. We could approve this with the stipulation that the applicant give revised drawings to Mr. Dorman.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-027, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) THAT THE APPLICATION WOULD CONFORM TO JACK BURRISS’ NOTE APRIL 7TH, 2002; (2) THAT THE APPLICANT WILL SUPPLY REVISED DRAWINGS TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Stypula Brothers Landscaping, 188 Westgate Drive – Freestanding Sign

 Mr. Dorman said the application is for a free- standing sign, 4’ long x 2.5’ tall, to be placed on the corner property at Westgate Drive and Cherry Valley Road, from mid-April through June. It would be set on a sawhorse with an extender board from which a plant is hung. The owner, Mr. Lavender, has granted permission for this sign to be placed on his property. There was some concern about the sawhorse mounting system, and the applicant suggested instead that he would create a pole system whereby a pole attached to the sign would slide into a flush-mounted pole in the ground. The Planning Commission preferred this alternative. Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested that all businesses on Westgate get together and erect a joint sign, but apparently some businesses are unwilling to do so.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-029, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) THAT THE SIGN WILL BE MOUNTED ON A REMOVABLE PIPE OR POLE, RATHER THAN THE SAWHORSE THAT WAS SHOWN ON THE APPLICATION. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Kenneth & Patricia Dickerman, 321 North Pearl Street – Exterior Improvements

Mr. Dorman said the application is proposing to install a fence at the end of the front driveway, an air conditioner on the north side, front steps and landings, and to extend the width of the rear driveway, including a retaining wall and to replace the existing gravel with concrete. The new fence will match the existing fence, and Mr. Dorman is asking the Planning Commission to retroactively approve the existing fence which never received approval. The fence is white and wooden with arrowhead pickets and posts with square caps. The neighbor is agreeable to the new fence extending into his yard and is also a participant in this portion of the project. The applicant would also eventually like to replace the timber retaining wall holding up the front yard, with a new stone retaining wall. Mr. Dickerman discussed the location and issues surrounding each part of the project. He said the side driveway is just for parking and is currently gravel. There may be old steps under the ground cover, which could be uncovered. He will make provisions to drain the runoff from the rear concrete driveway, into his backyard. 

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-035, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) THAT THE APPLICANT HAS THE OPTION TO SELECT THE SIDEWALK CONFIGURATION OF HIS CHOICE FROM THE OPTIONS PRESENTED; (2) THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES THE EXISTING FENCE IN THE UPPER REAR YARD ENCLOSURE; AND (3) THAT THE APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES BY THE BZBA.

Patrick Flynn, 348 North Granger Street – Backyard Fence

 Mr. Dorman said the applicant wants to enclose the back yard with a 4’ cedar board fence, going east from the deck and connecting to the south neighbor’s picket fence, and with a gate connector to the north neighbor’s fence. The final color can be approved by the Village Planner at a later date. Mr. Flynn said erosion and damage from the school construction has caused the chain link fence at the rear of the yard to need repair and will be replaced with a new chain link fence.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-037 AS SUBMITTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTIION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Janet Clayton, 119 East Elm Street (Rear) – Change of Use

 The applicant wishes to change the use from an insurance office to Gifts from Cricket Hill.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-038 FOR A CHANGE OF USE AS SUBMITTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Janet Clayton, 119 East Elm Street (Rear) – Sidewalk Sign

The applicant is seeking approval for a plastic-coated wooden white and green sidewalk sign on Elm Street at the top of the stairs. It is bigger than the maximum size so it will need a variance in order to be approved. Ms. Lucier had serious concerns about the location because it would be in the sidewalk and would not be visible from the road anyway. There isn’t really any good location for this sign in the very small sidewalk. We should not do anything to exacerbate an already cluttered situation. Ms. Clayton said she could move the sign closer to the road. (Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted to move the newspaper box for USA Today to some other location to eliminate some of the clutter.) He suggested hanging a sign maybe on the stairway awning or on the corner of the building. The sign standards are in place, and this sign has limited visibility. He likes the logo and likes to see logos on signs. Mr. Parris knows the applicant has spent a lot of money on the sign before getting approval. Maybe she could cut off the little legs to make it within the sign code. He did not think this sign is any more obstructive than other signs in the area. He wants to see a picture taken from the street. Mr. Salvage said the applicant needs to keep the sign out of the way. She already has a sign in the rear. He would be concerned with putting it near the street. The Planning Commission did suggest that they would be in favor of locating the sidewalk sign on Main Street. Mr. Parris suggested tabling this and allowing the applicant to check on the possibility of placing a wall sign on the front of the building facing Elm Street.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-039 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Michael Dager, 329 East College Street – Privacy Fence

 Mr. Dorman said the application is for a 6’ tall treated wood privacy fence in the side yard. The proposal is to continue an already existing wood privacy fence with decorative caps down 75’ of the applicant’s backyard. Harvey Shapiro stated that you cannot see the fence from the front. It would go from the existing fence 75’ south past the existing barn. The neighbor is supportive of the project. The stain will match the existing barn. Landscaping will be added later on both sides Mr. Wilkenfeld reminded the applicant that the finished side is to face the neighbor.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-040 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Sessions: 

Richard Van Meter/Brian Sutliff, 122 North Pearl Street – Proposed Zoning Amendment

 Mr. Sutliff has an investment planning service and he wants to move his business from Columbus to Granville, and has mostly already done this with the office he rents at Main/Elm Streets. He will have limited consultations, so parking will be no problem. Ms. Lucier asked whether the property has ever been VBD and was told no. Mr. Parris asked whether the change would obligate us to consider a busier business in the future. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether we can restrict a future business, and Mr. Dorman said this would be a good question to ask the Law Director, and he will do so. Mr. Salvage said there have been other houses changed over to businesses. The problem arises with parking. Mr. Sutliff’s plan would be ok but we do not want to end up with a high traffic business, when and if he moves out. Mr. Salvage asked whether we could approve this without changing the zoning, but was told home occupations must be conducted in primary residence. He suggested the applicant send a letter to the Village Planner, stating what he would like to do and asking him to consult with legal counsel. Mr. Van Meter, the owner, said the neighbors think the plan sounds like a good idea. Ms. Lucier said she did not think this was an appropriate issue for a work session. The applicant’s should submit an application with the fee. This fee would defray Village’s expenses in having the Law Director research a rezoning amendment. Other Commission members and the Planner said they were comfortable with a less formal approach. Mr. Parris wondered if once we rezone the property could we put any other restrictions on it. A local businessman, Hugh Masterson, has an office in Clark Wilhelm’s former bookstore location and would be in favor of the present application. There are other businesses next to 122 North Pearl Street and this would be hemmed in. 

Village of Granville – Proposed Zoning Code Amendments

Mr. Dorman asked the Planning Commission members to read the paperwork on the zoning changes before the next meeting.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE (A) UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND (A, B, C, D, and F) UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF APRIL 5, 2002. MR WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Closing Comments: Methodist Church: Jim Siegel of the Tree and Landscape Commission said there are screening requirements for parking areas and dumpsters. We have never dealt with this and. Mr. Dorman thinks we should ask the church to address this. If trees are taken down, they need to be replaced with trees of same size or equivalent. The church has an issue with swapping land for its addition, which the Village owns and will be back when they straighten out these matters. They have approval from the BZBA.

Adjournment: 8:50 p.m.

Next Meetings: April 22 and May 13

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 3/25/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION March 25, 2002 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: Richard Main, Richard Salvage (Chair) Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Frits Rizor, Leta Ross, Kevin Reiner, John Noblick Citizens’ Comments: None The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of March 11, 2002: Reverse second and third paragraph under Election of Officers. Correct spelling of Mr. Burriss’ name in paragraph 3. Mr. Parris noted under the Rogers’ application that we need to know exactly from the drawings how it will look and he has to adhere to that. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MS LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Kevin Reiner, 215 West Broadway – Install Dormers

Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant is doing work on the third floor and would like to add one dormer to the east side and one to the west side. The flat gable dormers will be 8 ½’ wide x 9’ tall with a 3/12 roof pitch. There will be three 4-light windows on each dormer. The dormers will not be taller than the primary roofline. Mr. Reiner added that he needs to add head room in the third floor, which he wants to finish as loft/office with bathroom. The dormer on the west is where the staircase goes up. Materials will match the house and windows are historic and will be functional. Mr. Burriss asked whether there was a relationship between the new windows and those below. Mr. Reiner thought the west window would be centered north of the chimney, but he was not quite sure; they will have to work with the joists that are there. Mr. Burriss hoped the applicant can make it so it does not look like an arbitrary addition. Mr. Wilkenfeld added that this is such a beautiful house that he would like to see a mock-up or drawing of how it will look when it is finished. Mr. Reiner tried to push the dormers toward the back of the house so as not to be obtrusive. Mr. Burriss suggested making the middle window of each dormer a round top, or one dormer with a center round top and one with the middle window square and the two surrounding windows round top. The window pattern on each dormer need not be the same, but they should be consistent with the house. Mr. Reiner has thought of that. Mr. Burriss wants to see drawings or photos showing locations, existing and proposed windows, and how the round tops will look. The applicant requested tabling the application.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-027 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jerry McClain Construction, Inc., 170 Pinehurst Drive – Temporary Contractor’s Sign Mr. Dorman said he came across the sign and told the applicant to come in for a permit. The sign is 7 1/4 square feet, sandblasted wood face, grey and black with black wooden posts. Below this sign is a face that states “170 Pinehurst Drive.” The sign will be relocated 15’ from the right of way, and the applicant showed in the picture where it will be sited. Mr. Burriss wished more contractors’ signs looked as good as this one. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-032 AS PROPOSED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Virginia Abbott, 1098 Newark-Granville Road – Driveway Realignment

 Mr. Dorman said the Planning Commission approved landscaping and fencing last summer. The proposed modification is to realign the driveway to remove the exaggerated curve, which will also reclaim more green space. Frits Rizor said they would like to move the mailbox post also. It will be black wrought iron to match the fence better. There will be a gate, and he showed on the photo where the box and fence posts would go. The large trees will stay. The driveway will be gated. Mr. Burriss asked for details of the driveway and was told it would be asphalt. Mr. Burriss wants to be sure there is sufficient space for cars on the asphalt without leaving ruts on the grassed edges. The driveway should not feel tight, since there is sufficient room.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THIS IS A MINOR MODIFICATION. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION #01-095 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY OPENING NOT BE ANY LARGER THAN WHAT NOW EXISTS. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Ross IGA, 484 South Main Street – Revised Landscape Plan around IGA Sign

 Mr. Dorman said the sign had to be moved 10’ to the north and there is less room for the originally approved landscape plan, so the applicant is here for a modification of the plan. Mr. Burriss thanked the Ross Family for this sign, which was a lengthy and difficult process, but he feels it exemplifies what the Planning Commission was hoping for. He wants to be sure the source of the light is covered up by landscaping. Ms. Ross said the fixtures still need to be tilted up more. Ms. Lucier asked whether the Tree and Landscape Commission should take a look at this and was told probably not. MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THIS IS A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION #00-154 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR B UNDER NEW BUSINESS (McClain) AND A AND B, UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Abbott and Ross IGA) AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMOS OF MARCH 21 AND 25, 2002. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Closing Comments: A. Mr. Dorman suggested changing the code to allow the Village Planner to approve temporary contractors’ signs because there are so many of them. He could address sign design when the application comes in originally. Mr. Parris asked whether the code stated what you cannot have. No, it does not. Mr. Burriss wants to eliminate unattractive hand painted signs on cardboard or plywood. He would like to give applicants a copy of the Jerry McClain sign as example. He likes a single sign announcing the names of all contractors. B. Ms. Lucier wanted to clarify the history of the Rogers application. Village Council never heard an appeal and was never involved in a decision. She presented a memo of history which will be entered into these minutes.

Adjournment: 8:35 p.m. Next Meetings: April 8 and 22

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

To: Fellow members of the Planning Commission From: Barbara Lucier Date: March 12, 2002 Subject: Council action regarding the Dan Roger’s application

During our discussion of compliance and enforcement problems regarding the five year Dan Rogers’ application ordeal, Richard Salvage indicated he believed the council had remanded the case back to the planning commission twice.

Because my recollection differed from Richard’s, and because of my concern that others of you might also believe the council had thrown the “hot potato” back to you, I checked the council minutes on Granville’s web site. The minutes indicate only two references to an appeal to the council. The first reference on August 19, 1999 under Committee reports states “In relation to a particular application involving a garage in the downtown area, Mr. Wernet noted that the owner of the property had filed an appeal with Council following disapproval by the Planning Commission. This appeal was withdrawn . The applicant has since pursued the route of modifying the original application. The Planning Commission is considering whether this modification is appropriately before the Planning Commission. The question has arisen, ‘Is it properly a modification or should it be a new application?’”

 The second reference on December 1, 1999 under Appeal Hearing Set states “Council received a request from Dan Rogers and Barbara Franks for an appeal of the BZBA decision regarding setback variances for a garage located at 210 E. Elm St. According to the homeowner’s wishes, Mayor Robertson set the appeal hearing for January 19, 1999(sic).”

 Although, the January 19 minutes do not refer to this hearing, I remember that the Council received the appeal information and we came to that meeting with the expectation we would hear the appeal. Upon arrival at the meeting, we were informed by Law Director Hurst that the applicants had withdrawn their appeal.

As you see from the record, this case was never remanded from Council to the Planning Commission. In fact, the Council was precluded from taking any action since the applicants always withdrew their appeals.

 

Planning Minutes 3/11/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2002 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris, Richard Salvage, Carl Wilkenfeld Barbara Lucier was welcomed as a new full voting member of the GPC. Members Absent: None Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, James R. Cooper, Ned Roberts, Bob Lavender, Bruce Westall, Tym Tyler Citizens’ Comments: None The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Election of Officers: MR. WILKENFELD NOMINATED RICHARD SALVAGE AS CHAIRMAN. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MS. LUCIER NOMINATED MR. BURRISS AS VICE CHAIR, BUT MR. BURRISS RESPECTFULLY DECLINED TO RUN.

MR. BURRISS NOMINATED MARK PARRIS AS VICE CHAIRMAN. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of February 25, 2002: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street – Two-Story Garage

 {Mr. Salvage recused himself from consideration of this application, and Mr. Parris served as chair.} Mr. Rogers asked to make a statement. He said that this has been a long, long process and I want to apologize to everyone about this whole thing that has been going on. I talked before, and I want to make it clear how I feel, my whole intention of this whole thing from Day 1 has been a historical sense, trying to get a historical plaque in my neighborhood and to make everything better. I have spent a lot of money and will continue to spend a lot of money, regardless of the outcome of this meeting tonight. It is a terrible thing that this whole process has gone through and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. I intend to not only apologize to you for wasting your time and wasting my time and resources, but also to the community via an article in The Sentinel. I hope we can go forward with this and put it behind us; again I am sorry, there is no way I would have done this at all if I would have known the extent of the hassles that it has created, and I just wanted to let you know that. Mr. Dorman provided a detailed summary of the application for a two-car garage. He mentioned the dimensions of the garage; a metal shed roof will be installed over the garage doors to break up the massing of the front facade; all materials including the siding, trim and decorations will match the existing house; the downspout runoff is carried to the street and tied into the existing storm system; the horizontal windows on the rear elevation will match the windows in the kitchen; and the entrance doors are to be solid wood. He then showed the proposed elevations for the garage and a 3-D rendering simulation of what the garage would look like. Mr. Burriss questioned whether the pedestrian door was six-panel or two-panel and was told it is proposed to be a six-panel door. Mr. Parris stated that as far as the pedestrian entry door and all other details are concerned we need to know what we are approving. Mr. Burriss asked about the window detail and Dan Rogers provided details. Ms. Lucier asked whether it would be heated and was told yes, heat is needed for the equipment in the workshop. She asked about the pipe and was told it would not exit on the side of the building but from the top. Neighbor Bruce Westall reported he is in support of Dan Rogers. He feels he is pretty representative of the neighborhood and the neighbors look forward to Dan’s finishing the project. He has confidence in Dan because he has done a remarkable job so far. Tym Tyler echoed Bruce Westall’s comments and feels Dan will fulfill his promises. Everyone in the neighborhood is in support of the project, and Tym Tyler feels other neighbors will have to catch up with Dan. Mr. Wilkenfeld said this is the largest real-to- life model that has ever come before the Planning Commission, and he still feels the garage is a bit on the big side. However, he feels Dan has done a great job, with other projects, and it is time to move on. He wondered whether the use of the garage was personal or commercial, and Dan Rogers said it is for personal use. Dan said he has a conditional use permit which he acquired a number of years ago, but it may have been just for his truck which he uses for his business. He has a workshop to make moldings for his house, not for his business. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO ACCEPT APPLICATION #02-006 AS PROPOSED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THERE ARE TO BE ANY CHANGES MADE THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO COME BEFORE US AGAIN. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Ms. Franks showed her excitement and Attorney Jim Cooper thanked the Planning Commission for working through this situation.

Bryn Du Woods, 341 Glyn Tawel Drive (Rear) – Exterior Improvements to White Barn

 {Mr. Parris recused himself in order to present the application.) Mr. Dorman said the application is to modify the white barn for aesthetics and safety as follows: (1) trim openings with white repair battens; (2) add steps with hand rails on south side center opening or provide an earth ramp; (3) add railings to the left and right openings on the south side. Mr. Parris said the site is primarily for recreational gatherings. They have been trying to upgrade the poorly remodeled structure and improve the area, which has a pond and maybe it will have a soccer field. The ramp would be 360 degrees so there would be no drop-off. Mr. Salvage noted that the applicant said all three openings would have ramps and Mr. Parris wants to modify that to just the center opening. Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested still giving the option for all 3 openings.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-009; WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE BRYN DU WOODS ASSOCIATION HAS THE OPTION TO EITHER DO THE CENTER PART ONLY WITH AN EARTH RAMP OR ALL THREE PARTS AS AN OPTION TO THE STEPS. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Bob Lavender, 773 Cherry Valley Road – Lot Split Mr. Dorman said the building at 57 Westgate Drive encroaches into the property at 773 Cherry Valley Road. The applicant is proposing to split that portion from 773 Cherry Valley Road so the building can be contained within one parcel. The applicant will provide a 20’ strip behind the building to allow for access to the remainder of the lot known as 773 Cherry Valley Road.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-022 AS PRESENTED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Debbra Hannahs, 119 East Elm Street - Change of Use

This application was added to the agenda since it appeared to be a straightforward and routine application. Ms. Hannahs said the former shop, a Home and Garden shop, moved out and she wants to open a gift shop in its place. Even though it’s a similar business, any change of business in this district requires a change of use approval.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-024 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Debbra Hannahs, 119 East Elm Street – Window Sign

 The applicant is requesting a gold window sign that would span both windows, saying “Home Pleasures, Ltd.” for her gift shop.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-025 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A AND B UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND A, B, AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF MARCH 11, 2002. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Closing Comments: A. Mr. Burriss noted that a couple of years ago we agreed to offer a yearly award to an applicant who has completed an outstanding project. He feels we have had a couple of outstanding projects done within the Village and he would like to encourage further development along these lines. He feels it would be a good thing for us as a commission to recognize some of those projects that are worthy. This would also be encouragement for others to do that level of work. Mr. Salvage asked Mr. Burriss and Mr. Parris to work with Mr. Dorman on this project and report back later. Ms. Lucier recalled that the previous Village Council approved the concept of an award program but nothing further has happened.

 B. Mr. Parris thought we should begin scheduling time to continue revising various chapters of the zoning code. Mr. Dorman added that the Law Director has been working on major changes to the code, and it was suggested those changes maybe a good place to start. 

 C. Mr. Burriss is concerned that the temporary sign on the bank is multicolored but was approved as black. Mr. Dorman will notify the bank that we are concerned about this.

 D. Mr. Wilkenfeld wondered whether Dan Rogers should be given additional reprimands, and the group thought he has suffered enough. It was agreed that GPC is not in the enforcement business. The enforcement process should be spelled out clearly in the zoning code.

 E. Ms. Lucier asked whether our minutes could be posted on the website and Mr. Dorman said yes.

Adjournment: 8:30 p.m. Next Meetings: The meeting for March 25th is scheduled to be cancelled but the issue will be left open in case some straightforward applications come in. 

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 2/25/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2002 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Richard Main, Mark Parris, Richard Salvage Members Absent: Barb Lucier, Carl Wilkenfeld Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, James R. Cooper, Vic Krevinko, Norbert Peiker, L. A. Mead, Clifton Crais, Bruce Westall, Tim Tyler, Lloyd Philipps, Ned Roberts, Melissa Hartfield Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Election of Officers to be postponed until the entire Planning Commission is present. Lacking a new chairman, Mr. Salvage chaired the meeting.

Minutes of February 11, 2002: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street – Two-Story Garage

 Once again, due to a lack of quorum this application could not be heard; it remained on the table and will be heard at the March 11, 2002 meeting of the Granville Planning Commission.

New Business:

Clifton Crais, 234 North Pearl Street – Second Story Addition

Mr. Dorman explained the plans for converting the existing rear addition into a two-story structure over the same footprint. The project involves: (1) raising the roof and adding a new asphalt-shingle roof; (2) repairing and painting; (3) new kitchen and bathrooms; (4) expanding the back yard and adding landscaping; (5) new windows and French door; and (6) demolish the old garage and cement pit. Materials will match those of the existing house. The picket fence will be extended to the house. Clifton Crais appreciated all the assistance the Planning Commission gave him during the work sessions and said he is researching manuals of early 19th century architecture to ensure accuracy. They are not sure about how the addition roof will look on the house, but they want to subordinate it to the existing roof. They will adjust the slope of the roof to fit. They will articulate the primary structure with trim board that matches the existing trim on the west corners of the house. He said they will use the old doors which have been stored in the basement since the former owners renovated the house. He provided details on the plans for windows and roof, etc.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-010 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT ONE OF THE EXISTING DOORS ON THE WEST ELEVATION OR NORTH ELEVATION BE USED FOR THE PROPOSED DOOR ON THE NORTH ELEVATION; 2) THAT THE ROOF ON THE ADDITION DOES NOT GO ANY HIGHER THAN THE ROOF ON THE MAIN PART THAT EXISTS NOW; AND 3) ALL TRIM WILL REPLICATE WHAT IS THERE NOW. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Clifton Crais, 234 North Pearl Street - Demolition

 The applicant wishes to demolish the existing garage, garage extension, cement pit, and faux roof. None of the structures scheduled to be demolished have any particular historical or architectural features.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-011 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Exempted Village Schools, 248 New Burg Street – Additions

Several additions are planned for the school property: (1) fitness center and locker room; (2) renovation of high school locker bay and TV Production to special education spaces; (3) auditorium, performing arts, administration, commons, kitchen; (4) renovation of middle school classrooms, etc.; and (5) classroom addition at east end of middle school building. The two representatives from MKC explained the details planned for the buildings and showed how they emphasized the new entrance. They are highlighting the fitness center on the north side with glass and low landscaping, incorporating recommendations made by the Planning Commission at a work session. There will be more trees and fewer flower beds. (A report from Tree and Landscape Committee is attached to the application.) Mr. Burriss asked to hear details of the scene shop and was told the door is to be used for deliveries to the shop. There will be access into the scene shop with a rolling door. (Mr. Burriss wondered what would be done with trash and was told it will be picked up on a daily basis and stored inside.) A non-recessed asphalt driveway will allow trucks to get to the building. The door is 12’x14’, perhaps made of metal. Mr. Salvage asked whether there was any thought to disguise the scene shop door and was told it will be a flush panel to be as unobtrusive as possible. The scene shop is in an ideal spot behind the stage. Mr. Parris suggested exchanging the two rooms but was told that would not work. They had to weigh benefits against negatives. Mr. Burriss does not think the scene shop door fits very well. If it must be in the front, facing New Burg Street, maybe it could be articulated differently or downplayed a little more. The applicants have created a rhythm with the spacing of the orchestra room windows, which is not present in the entrance and delivery doors on the other end. Maybe the windows could be shifted a bit toward the door and the door shifted a bit toward the windows. The drawing with the application has only one window, but the applicants want a pair of windows as in the drawing presented to the group. (Jerry Turner, Engineer, has provided his comments for the application, and MKC said they have addressed those.)

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-012, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS A REVISED EXTERIOR ELEVATION #10 TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR APPROVAL. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bryn Du Woods Association, 341 Glyn Tawel Drive – Barn Modifications

 Lacking a quorum, Mr. Parris, who was to present the application, requested that the Planning Commission table the application.

Mid-Ohio Development Corporation, 1959 Newark-Granville Road – Signs

 Bill Mead, the representative from Mid-Ohio Development Corporation, said they have built 8 buildings at the Offices at Erinwood and now are requesting signage for the ninth building. They want it consistent with the other buildings and are asking for a pair of wall signs at the entrances and an internally lit sign at the north end of the building. While internally lit signs are not permitted, this one would be consistent with the other 8 buildings, but would need a variance. A variance is also needed for the total number of wall signs requested (3), instead of the one that the code allows. The condominium rules specify this type of signage on each building, so that a perspective tenant knows what signage they will get before they lease the space. Mr. Salvage applied the application to the criteria in 1147.03: 

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. This is clear. There is not another development like this in the district. It is peculiar to these structures. B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. A literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of rights allowed on the other buildings. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. We changed the sign code after this was originally approved. D. That the granting of this variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. I do not think anybody else has a situation like this. There is an SBD across the street, but they are not being denied anything. E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. No.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES FOR APPLICATION #02-015 BECAUSE OF THE CRITERIA STATED PREVIOUSLY. THIS IS TO ALLOW TWO WALL SIGNS AND ONE INTERNALLY LIT SIGN, WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER EIGHT BUILDINGS IN THE DEVELOPMENT. MR.BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-015 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Melissa Hartfield, 220 South Pearl Street – Rear Addition Expansion and Exterior Improvements

 Mr. Dorman explained the renovations the applicant is proposing, which are detailed in the application on file. Ms. Hartfield stated that she is not sure the shutters she proposed to reinstall will work. They were going to be an accent, but she may omit them. The Planning Commission members agreed with her. She is trying to convert this duplex back into a single family residence, so she will eventually get rid of the second front door, which was used as access to the second apartment. She described the gable decorations, brackets for the columns and spindles for the railing. She wants to clean up the property without overdoing. The chimney will be removed. Ms. Hartfield described the gable design in detail as well as the window plans. The Planning Commission recommended on either side of the French doors, that she use windows of the same size and with the same spacing. The window pattern will probably be 6 over 6 but should complement the pattern of the French doors. The roof is seamless metal. Mr. Burriss thought she should treat all entry columns the same. There should be fan brackets on both sides of the center column as well. He asked about the skylights in the plan and was told they are no longer apart of the plan.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-016, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) ON THE FRONT ELEVATION, THAT THE FAN BRACKETS BE INCLUDED ON THE CENTER COLUMN OF THE FRONT PORCH; 2) ON THE REAR ELEVATION, THAT THE WINDOWS ON EACH SIDE OF THE FRENCH DOOR BE OF THE SAME SIZE AND SPACING IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE DOOR; 3) THAT THE NEW REAR WINDOWS WILL HAVE A RECTANGULAR GRID PATTERN, PROBABLY 6 OVER 6, BUT BEING COMPLIMENTARY TO THE SIZE OF THE INDIVIDUAL LIGHTS IN THE FRENCH DOOR; 4) THAT THERE WILL BE NO SKYLIGHTS OR SHUTTERS; AND 5) ON THE REAR ELEVATION, THAT THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO INSTALL A GABLE WING ON THE REAR PEAK THAT MATCHES THE ONE ON THE FRONT PEAK AS PROPOSED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Brian & Leslie Newkirk, 226 East Broadway – Exterior Renovations

 Mr. Dorman explained the proposed plans for this project, which has already started. Each of the windows will be replaced with a double-paned window with a 9 over 9 grid pattern. In addition, the replacement doors will have nine lights. The tire tracks of the front parking space will be bricked. An air conditioning unit will be installed near the back steps. The fence will be replaced with a wooden fence. Brian Newkirk said he may come across things as he works which will require further changes. He apologized for not having received the proper permits. He did not realize replacement windows would cause any difficulty. The house has settled and needs to be shored up and plumbed. He will replace side windows later as money becomes available. All the windows will match and be energy efficient. Mr. Salvage asked whether or not the window changes could be done within a year and was told yes. Mr. Burriss’ concern is that this property is in the downtown historic district downtown and asked for details on the bricking of the driveway. It will resemble the Darfus drive across the street and will be a little farther apart to accommodate his truck. Mr. Dorman can review the fence plans.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-018, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT THE NEW A/C UNIT WILL BE PLACED UNDERNEATH THE EXISTING BACK PORCH; 2) THAT THE PROPOSED NEW FENCE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING WIRE FENCE WILL BE OF A WOOD DESIGN, WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER; AND 3) THAT THE PARKING AREA IN THE FRONT, WHICH IS NOW CONCRETE, WILL BE REPLACED WITH BRICK. THE TRACKS WILL BE THE SAME WIDTH AS THEY ARE NOW, BUT THE SPACING BETWEEN THEM CAN CHANGE NOT MORE THAN THE TOTAL WIDTH OF THE EXISTING CONCRETE NOW. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR B,C,D,E,F, AND G UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS DETAILED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF FEBRUARY 22, 2002. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9:03 p.m. Next Meetings: March 11 and 25 

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.