Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 12/22/03

 GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION December 22, 2003 Minutes

Members Present: Jackie O’Keefe, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier Citizens Present: Bill Troy, Jenny Morehead, Tom Burkett, Tommy Burkett, Judith Apater, Jeff McInturf, Steve West, Dana West, Greg Ross, Roger Kessler Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of November 24, 2003: MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

TLR & Associates, 127 South Prospect Street, Sign

The application was withdrawn at request of applicant.

Park National Bank, 119 East Broadway – Signs

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant is seeking 4 signs: (1) free-standing sign in parking lot; (2) wall sign at top of bank façade; (3) window signs on either side of front door; and (4) projecting sign for clock. Roger Kessler explained they wish to replace sizes on existing signs except the one in the rear, which will be 2’x2’. He said the building sign will have aluminum letters 1” off the wall. The clock sign (4) is to be black with blue numerals with gold band trademark. The same color will be on all signs. Mr. Parris thinks the wall sign would look better in black than in blue, but Mr. Kessler said it’s their trademark color. Mr. Salvage thought the upgrades were appropriate. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-170 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Baptist Church, 115 East Broadway – remodeling and paving 

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to do a general remodeling and paving. They will match existing stone façade and widen the stairway for better handicapped access and install a chair lift. They wish approval for refacing the corner of the Christian Ed building with matching stone and paving for plaza between church and education center. Tom Burkett explained the plans for widening the exterior stairway to the church to 6’. Repair of building and improving the plaza area will tie the two buildings together visually. A 7’ wall along driveway will be covered with the same material. Now it’s cement block painted white. Mr. Burkett showed a sample of the locally made proposed stone, which will match the existing building well. The texture is very much the same. The current asphalt driveway will be replaced with pavers or asphalt, but Mr. Parris stated that one or the other must be chosen. Mr. Strayer said flat surfaces are not something that GPC approves, but plazas would be, so they have an option with the driveway and GPC just approves the plaza. Mr. Burkett said it will depend on whether they have enough money for pavers, but there will definitely be asphalt. They are not going to change the configuration of the driveway. Judy Apater, architect, explained the difference between doorway measurement. The steps will be removed and replaced with safer steps. Mr. Salvage asked about the planting area and small tree, and Tom Burkett wants a planting area, to be moved closer to the building. The tree is in the planting. The request will go to the Tree and Landscape Commission. 

 MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-167 AND GIVE THE APPLICANT THE OPTION OF SURFACING THE DRIVEWAY WITH ASPHALT AS IS THERE NOW OR PAVERS GOING INTO THE DRIVEWAY AREA. A DRAWING IS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Baptist Church, 115 East Broadway – lighting

 The applicant also wishes to install 4 150-watt spotlights to light the lower portion of bell tower Tom Burkett said the fixtures will be behind the little peaks at the base of the tower in front of the single window. They will be operated on a timer and photoelectric eye to light them only at night. Their lighting consultant helped with set-up design. Mr. Riffle asked whether this would interfere with airplane traffic, and Mr. Burkett reminded the group that the Chapel has more light than this one. Mr. Parris would like the lighting consultant to provide a schematic to show details of intensities and fixtures in a lighting plan to give us a graphic representation of what we will see visually and show it to the Village Planner

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-168 WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE VILLAGE PLANNER WILL GET A LIGHTING SCHEMATIC AND SHOW WHERE LIGHTS WILL BE LOCATED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Lisa Morrisette, 214 North Pearl Street - Fence

 Since members would like to see a plot of the lot with fence line and as the applicant is on vacation,

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION 03-171 PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Brian Corbett, 117 South Prospect Street – change of use

The applicant proposes to make half of the first floor and basement and turn it into a baked goods and retail store. Parking requirements are uncertain. The applicant is not here. 

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO TABLE 03-172 UNTIL APPLICANT CAN BE PRESENT. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Ross Granville Market

 Mr. West updated the group of the entranceway to the old IGA and showed two different plans for front façade behind the two trees ending the allee. A jumbo- sized brick will be used. The roof is higher in the front than in the back so mechanicals will not show from the front. They want to accentuate the center between the two openings. He said the building will be squared off and the area in front between the doors protrudes 12’ outward. A cathedral ceiling will be at inside front. They contemplated going with a partial gable in the back. Members were not too concerned about the appearance at the rear. Mr. Salvage thinks the drawing looks good. He likes the way the roof ties in with the vestibule. Mr. Parris noted the only issue we had last time focused on the center entryway. Members liked both plans but slightly preferred Plan B with the little green point at the center front.

Spring Hills Baptist Church

 Jeff McInturf from the planning committee said they are going to take the next step in their planning. In this section they will add, fill in, with an L-shaped structure. They are requesting a stairway outside the plan originally approved. Originally they wanted a courtyard, but they will fill that in to give them more room inside. It will be a plain closed stairwell. Mr. Salvage has no problems with the plan. Mr. Paris stated that as long as they match construction materials, we don’t have a problem The stairwell is in the back so should not be a concern. 

Comprehensive Plan Review

 GPC members preferred to wait until the fill membership could be present to discuss the review. Mr. Strayer asked members to submit thoughts to him for the next packet.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS B,C, AND D 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 DECEMBER 19, 2003. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:20 p.m. Next Meetings: January 12 and 26

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 11/10/03

 GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION November 10, 2003 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Melissa Hartfield, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: none Citizens Present: Chuck Whitman Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner Citizens¡¦ Comments: None The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of October 27, 2003: On page 2, change end of 3d paragraph to ¡§¡Kthe HER sign to make it free-standing, it could be on the same bracket and eliminate the need for variance for two projecting signs¡K.¡¨ MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Chuck Whitman, 138 East Broadway - Awning Mr. Strayer stated that the applicants wish to renovate the awning over Whit¡¦s storefront and propose to replace the green with gray and red. The material will be similar to the one for Hare Hollow. The applicant said the color is similar to the color of the building (taffy). They are raising the awning up about one foot. MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-153 AS SUBMITTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Chuck Whitman, 138 East Broadway - Signs Mr. Strayer said the applicant is seeking approval for three signs: (1) an etched vinyl window sign on the door, which will be frosted on the glass; consensus agreed that an ice cream cone is not a commercial message; (2) a neon ¡§Open¡¨ sign with a ice cream cone on the window. The sign is to be turned on only when the business is open. Neon signs are permitted as long as no commercial logo or message is displayed. (3) A wall sign over the awning in a polished brass frame. With the four colors requested, this sign would require a variance. The background color is supposed to match the color of the building. The applicant agreed to paint the little ice cream cone blue to avoid the variance. Ms. Lucier finds the wall sign to be very busy with all those words, but Mr. Whit said that is his official logo. Consensus agreed this was OK.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-154 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE BLACK COLOR ON THE WALL SIGN ON THE FACE OF THE BUILDING BE CHANGED TO BLUE ALREADY PROPOSED FOR THE SIGN. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A AND B 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 OCTOBER 24, 2003. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: Comprehensive Plan

 Village Council has voted to table their portion of the Plan until after the first of the year so the new Council can get a chance to review it, so we have more time to work on it.

 Mr. Parris is confused as to what our role is and what we are to be looking for in the document. Is it for language? For content? For our opinions? To change policy? It would be hard to achieve a consensus in our group. The group putting the Plan together worked hard and collected data from citizens, and he does not feel we can change the language. Mr. Salvage noted there are things in this section that he does not think fit here. The problem is it¡¦s already two years old, and there are things no longer current.

 Ms. Hartman thought GPC should look for anything that does not seem to be working¡Xmore of a refinement than a change. Look at things you have addressed in the past or things missing here.

 Mr. Burris said we are only sending our recommendations. He thought we should start tonight, since we will need all the time available. 

 Mr. Salvage preferred to wait until the new Council is installed. 

 Mr. Strayer said a comprehensive plan is only as good updated as it is. The best course of action is for GPC to look at goals, policies, and plans of the new revision and see if they are still applicable. It is broken up into three sections and how they apply to the Village. Lastly comes the implementation and how to get goals and policies into the zoning code. He thought Keith Myers could come in and give us answers to our questions. A comprehensive plan is long term and an ordinance is short term. 

Some issues brought up were: „« Open space requirements and requirements per acre „« Where did this information come from: „« What¡¦s the rationale behind the numbers? „« Updated figures are needed „« Clarify ¡§built-out¡¨ sections

Consensus agreed to postpone this discussion.

Mr. Salvage requested the Village Planner to postpone any applications for November 22, if possible.

Adjournment: 8:23 p.m. Next Meetings: November 24 (only if something comes up) and December 8

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 10/14/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2003 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle Members Absent: Richard Salvage (Chair) Citizens Present: Pam Powell, Kevin Foster, Craig Fottor, Drew McFarland, Greg Ross, Steve West, Dana West Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of September 22, 2003: On the last paragraph, correct spelling of Mr. Riffle’s name. MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Kevin Foster, 351 North Granger Street - Addition Mr. Strayer stated that this is for a residence addition, which would replace the front porch, currently in poor condition. The new porch will have 4 posts on east and west, and the proposed materials are here before you. The square footage will be increased from 1200 to 2200. Mr. Foster added that it will be longer and a few feet wider than the present structure. Ms. Lucier asked how similar the new windows would be to the existing ones and was told that they are more rounded on the porch. The plan is to use double-hung windows throughout for economic reasons. Windows will be consistent. They are replacing gutter and downspouts. The siding will be 6” clapboard. The antenna will be removed. Mr. Burris asked about the different heights of the windows and Mr. Foster said they are unaligned because of the low ceilings. The new part will have a full second floor. Mr. Main asked about the location of detached garage and driveway and was told they are not sure yet. Mr. Foster would like to have the access from Spellman Street, but there are two trees he is reluctant to remove. Windows were discussed further and it was suggested to repeat the arched windows in the front. Mr. Burris thought it was OK to have different windows in the front and it would be a dishonor to completely remove the arched windows. Mr. Foster described the posts on the porch and explained the window trim, which is heavier than what is there now. He wasn’t sure he could buy more, but Mr. Riffle and Mr. Parris told him where it could be found.

MS LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE 03-139 WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT (1) FOUR FIRST FLOOR WINDOWS ON NORTH AND EAST SIDES OR ORIGINAL PART OF THE HOUSE WILL BE CLOSE TO WHAT IS PLANNED; (2) FINAL PLANS FOR LENTEL DETAILS ARE TO BE SHOWN TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Prudential Office, 142 East Broadway – sidewalk sign Mr. Strayer said the applicant did not provide detail of the sign, but it will be exactly like the one at Reader’s Garden. The applicant is not here tonight to answer questions so members chose to table it.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO TABLE 03-142 UNTIL THE APPLICANT CAN BE PRESENT AND CAN SHOW THE PROPOSED SIGN. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

W.W. Bancroft, 230 East Broadway – Sign Mr. Strayer said the application is for a projecting sign with two tags off the front porch, using and repainting the former Crown and Cushion sign. The tags are considered part of the projecting sign, and with the tags, it is still within the maximum 10 square feet. Drew McFarland added that they can make the sign either straight or tapered. Mr. Burriss noted that the Crown and Cushion sign had a nice border, and he would like to see this added. The sign would feel more finished with a border. Pam Powell said that could be done, in either red or black. Mr. Strayer will review final sign design. Ms. Lucier preferred the same font for all signs for the building. MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-144 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT (1) IT HAVE A BORDER AND THAT (2) APPLICANT WILL RUN FINAL DESIGN BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Drew McFarland, 230 East Broadway – Sign The application is for a second projecting sign on the same building as the previous application. Only one projecting sign is allowed on a building, and the sign is too high to fall within the code, so two variances would be required. The actual sign formerly hung from the building down the street where Drew McFarland had his law office. He said it will hang off the second floor bay window over the porch roof and project 30”. It’s two- sided and heavy, so it cannot swing. He has used the Kussmaul-designed sign since 1989 and is proposing this in lieu of window lettering. Mr. Burris asked whether he could hang it inside the bay window and Mr. McFarland said he would rather not. It would not be visible behind the blinds. Mr. Parris noted we just approved the sign for W.W. Bancroft, which is completely different in graphics and style, but Mr. McFarland said it shouldn’t matter because his is on the second floor. Mr. Burris noted that we have tried to follow guidelines of the Master Plan, and the second floor office use is what was recommended for downtown. Old photographs show many businesses on the second floor. He thought the sign bracket should have some reference to the center bar of the window, and also you need to consider how it will look from inside. Mr. McFarland was picturing it in the lower part of the window so as not to block the view. Mr. Riffle does not like the two signs being so different. Mr. McFarland thought changing the Crown and Cushion sign would be cost prohibitive, and he already has a sign he likes. It was approved by GPC for a block away. Mr. Burris suggested adapting the Crown and Cushion sign to appear more similar to the McFarland sign. Fonts, colors, and materials should be the same. Changing it would mean amending the previous application. Ms. Lucier is concerned about granting variances for a second projecting sign with height deviation because it opens up the possibility of others doing the same thing up and down the street. Guidelines should be followed. Mr. Parris referred to variances in 1147, and according to the code we do not have to apply every one of these criteria to the argument, but at least one. The problem is that a sign puts itself into a position of needing a variance, but we need to give reasons. Mr. McFarland said they are not using up the other two signs allowed. He cannot really convert his sign to a wall sign. It’s a very sedate, heavy, weathered redwood sign. Mr. Paris said we have to be in a position where someone is willing to propose a variance. If no one will sponsor it, there’s nowhere for it to go. No member has a problem with the actual sign, but no one would come forward to support it. Ms. Lucier finds nothing in the criteria for the second projecting sign. Mr. Burris would rather do more research on other projecting signs in the village. He noted that the two signs are on different planes. This is somewhat similar to a projecting sign and an awning sign on the same building.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TABLE 03-144. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: Granville IGA

 Greg Ross introduced Steve West, Designer, and said they want to square off the building and remodel the entire interior with a small addition on the back. Mr. Burriss noted that on the landscape and parking plan we created a central allee for a different configuration, which went into the building rather than a blank wall. He would prefer to see the allee as a central feature with islands and trees uniting the lot and the store in a happy celebration. A building in a parking lot needs a better dialog. Mr. West described the windows and colors. There will be a second floor office. On the back side a trash compactor will sit beside the cardboard compactor and freezer. Boxes and Bows wants space back there too, and the applicant is willing to listen to GPC’s suggested materials. Mr. Parris does not want the mechanicals to show from the front, and Mr. Wesson said they will be hidden by the roof. Mr. Ross stated that the IGA name will have to change because their supplier went bankrupt. New logos will be needed, and rather than replacing the awning with the logo there presently, he would like to paint out the name. Later they will address a new sign package for the area. Finding of Fact: MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A AND C 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 OCTOBER 10, 2003. MS LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9:30 p.m. Next Meetings: October 27 and November 10 Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 9/22/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION September 22, 2003 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Matt McGowan, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: none Citizens Present: Brian Newkirk, Steve Mershon, Ben & Nadine Rader, Jerry Martin, Kathy Lowery, Rodger Kessler, Neal & Sue Hartfield, Julio Valenzuela, Carol Whitt Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of September 8, 2003: Page 1, 5th line up, change Mr. Parris to Mr. Salvage. Page 2, Line 2, add representing Law Director after Attorney Durham. MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Ben Rader, 130 West Broadway - Fence The applicant wishes to add a fence in the front yard to duplicate the existing wrought iron fence on the little balcony over the door. If he cannot duplicate the circular piece, the fence design will be altered to exclude them. A gate will be added at center front. MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-129 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Carol Whitt, 139 West Maple - Windows Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to replace a rear concrete block wall with glass blocks and door. The project will not be visible from the street. Ms. Whitt described the project is detail, showing where the blocks and windows will be. There is a lot of shrubbery in the area. Mr. Burriss thought we reviewed this project last year and thought the current plans would be an improvement over the metal windows. MS. LUCIER MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF 03-123 AS PRESENTED. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Neil Hartfield, 325 East Elm Street - Renovationss Mr. Strayer said the project will include roof and window replacements, increasing pitch on front porch and installing windows that match the current windows. The applicant wants to restore some historical details which have disappeared through remodeling. Mr. Hartfield described the project in detail and GPC members asked for further clarification of some items, such as location of window on the north second floor and ventilation plans. The 6over6 double-hung windows will all match in style and size. A new dormer will be added to break up the massing and allow more light into the bedrooms. New board and batten siding will be added to the third story gable ends. The windows will be appropriately trimmed, and a retaining wall or landscaping will be added to control rainwater runoff. A brick veneer will be added below the drip board. A glass block window will be added in the east side for the bathroom. Members discussed the pitch and materials of the roof Ms. Lucier asked about the aesthetics of front façade where louvers are tacked on and thought a window would improve appearance, and Mr. Hartfield said originally there were two windows in the attic, but two windows do not look right. It will look better with board and batten siding. Mr. Burriss would like to see consistency among windows. Some are 6over6 and some are 8over 8. He asked if there could be two dormers added, but Mr. Hartfield did not think that would look as good. He thought the windows would look better lined up. He wanted to see more pitch on gable or shed roof. GPC had no problems with the porch roof. Mr. Hartfield wanted to think about 6over 6 instead of 8over 8 in the second floor and wanted to draw another sketch with more pronounced peak and smaller size dormers, board and batten on north side, trimming louvers, and a new window. He will also do a landscaping plan on the east to help control water run-off.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-125 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT DRAWINGS OF THE DORMER MODIFICATIONS TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND MR. BURRISS AND THEY WILL GIVE FINAL APPROVAL. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville School, 130 N. Granger Street – Sign Mr. Strayer said the requested sign is blue and white, sand-blasted foam. The maximum size for a sign is 4 sq.ft, but this one is 12.5 sq.ft. Ms. Lucier said the sign is too big, three times what it should be and asked whether the sign is decorative or informational. Mr. Burriss said the School Board has been very generous with the Sinnett House space and wondered whether the Granville Fellowship would also be requesting a sign. Kathy Lowery, Superintendent, said they have not approached her. The sign is informational and would be adjacent to the parking lot. Rodger Kessler, Signmaker, thought if it were any smaller, people could not read it. Mr. Salvage said the building comes right up against a commercial district, and it is not in a residential area. Mr. Parris said the zoning in place was not designed for schools, and he would be sensitive to what neighbors think of the sign. Mr. Riffle thought it would be more visible as a two-sided sign. Mr. Burriss would prefer that the sign be 6” lower in the place as proposed. Mr. Parriss said we struggle with this issue constantly, and he has mixed feelings, but if you look at the appropriateness of the function and size, he would not have a problem as long as the neighbors do not object. We have done this for other institutions. Neighbor Steve Mershon believes the school needs identification on the building. The place they have chosen is fine, but he would like it a little smaller. We wanted to make the area look more residential. He thought this an appropriate size if it is to be viewed from Broadway and Granger. He would rather see it on Broadway, but they are trying to direct people into the parking lot. Mr. Salvage said the sign location will eliminate the problem of people not finding the parking lot. He thinks it should be parallel to Granger and should be lower. Mr. Parris applied the criteria to the size variance (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. We deal; with this type of circumstance more than we would like to. 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. The sign is appropriate for the size of the activities in the building. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 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. I don’t think that granting on that basis would confer any undue privilege to the applicant that this body has not seen fit to consider in other applications. 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. The variance will in no manner affect health, safety, or general welfare .

FOR THESE REASONS, I PROPOSE GRANTING A VARIANCE TO 03- 127 FOR SIZE OF THE SIGN FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MS. LUCIER VOTED NO.)

 MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 03-127 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT AGREES TO DECREASE HEIGHT TO 1’ OFF THE GROUND INSTEAD OF 1 ½’. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

W. W. Bancroft LLC, 230 East Broadway - Fence Mr. Strayer stated that the application is coming from the screening required for the parking lot east side approved at our last meeting. The fence will be a 72” three-board style. The same fence on the north will be installed on the east side. It will not disturb the big tree on site. Brian Newkirk said they have lowered the height of the fence and it will match the other one. MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-128 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Julio Valenzuela, 410 North Granger Street - Addition Mr. Strayer said the applicant wants an addition on the rear of the second floor. The massing will be affected, but since it’s on the second floor, it won’t be very visible. The materials will match original house. Mr. Valenzuela said we are coming over the first 8’ and allowing the master suite with 8’’ overhang. Shutters will be added. The house has been added onto several times, but he will be keeping the old part and only working on the additions. Mr. Salvage asked why the window on the left side will be right up above and the applicant said it’s to bring additional lighting inside. Mr. Burris stated if he centered the window, it would look better. The inside area was discussed and it was determined that there was good cause for putting the window where it is. Ms. Lucier asked whether it is an extension of the gable, and the applicant said on the south is was too low, and we are going to match the gable. MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE 03-131 AS SUBMITTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,C,D,E,F 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 SEPTEMBER 19, 2003. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9:00 p.m. Next Meetings: October 15 and 27 Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 9/8/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION September 8, 2003

 Minutes

Members Present:, Matt McGowan, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier Citizens Present: Drew McFarland, Judy Guenther, Barbara Hammond, Pamela Powell, Cindy Farley, Sylvia Brombeck, Nancy Graham, Kathleen Reagan, John & Georgia Denune, Brian Newkirk, Mark Evans, Mary Mulligan, Jerry Martin, Flo Hoffman, Charles & Lisa Whitman, Joe Durham Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak. The Chair welcomed Chris Strayer, new Village Planner

Minutes of August 25, 2003: MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Pamela Powel/HER Real Estate, 230 East Broadway- Change of Use and Parking Mr. Strayer said the applicant is seeking a change of use for first floor and basement from retail to a professional office. The application includes paving for the lot, as 5 spaces require a paved lot. The reason this application was tabled, he added, was because of confusion with the issue of parking. The total required for the business and the 1st Federal is 5 spaces, but with 5, you need a paved parking lot. The applicants have provided a new survey that lines out the lot, and there is a shared contract. There will be a shared easement between the two properties. The lot fits 12 cars, which puts it above the required number for two parcels. The change of use is determined to meet all codes. Keith Myers, neighbor, said the problem is there is no outlet for storm water; it all goes back onto his property. He would have a serious concern about the paved parking lot without dealing with the water management system and an inspection by the Village Engineer. Mr. Salvage added that a letter from another neighbor recommends that approval be conditional upon a site drainage plan, and Mr. McFarland replied that Joe Hickman has suggested such a plan. John Denune, neighbor, said he would have no problem with the proposed parking because the more off- street parking there is, the better. Mr. Salvage asked whether GPC could make a determination to have the lot be not paved, and Attorney Durham, sitting in for Law Director Crites said it would have to be decided by BZBA. In 1159.03,e.3 Mr. McFarland noted that if a change of use does not result in a greater parking requirement, a BZBA review is not required. So a variance is not required; he would rather have it not be paved. Brian Newkirk said they would have to remove the second tree, a 26” maple, in order to pave the lot and make everything fit Mr. Strayer said it’s because of the 1st Federal’s lease that the project needs additional parking. This discussion should center on paving. The fence required will be addressed in the next application. Mr. Parris would like to see the tree stay, and as long as we are agreeable that there is enough parking space, he would rather see it remain gravel. Mr. Salvage would like to go ahead and approve this tentatively for gravel pending appeal to BZBA. If the applicants want to appeal to BZBA for variance to omit the paving, he would be in favor, and Drew McFarland said they would like to do this. Mr. Myers said this would be wise. In general in the Village parking is limited and it is good judgment to look at each individual case rather than adhering strictly to the code. Paving the area would strain a water system already at its maximum. Mr. McFarland thought they could pave only the parking slots, but that would not work very well.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-106 WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: (1) APPLICANT SHALL HAVE OPTION TO USE THE PARKING LOT WITH GRAVEL NOW AND APPLY TO BZBA FOR VARIANCE FOR THAT CONDITION; (2) FENCE TO BE INSTALLED ON EAST PROPERTY LINE WILL BE 72”; (3) APPLICATION IS CONDITIONAL UPON APPROVAL OF FENCE FOR NORTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. McFarland asked to amend the next application to have the fence be 72”.

New Business:

Brian Newkirk, 226 East Broadway - Fence

 Mr. Strayer said a fence is required along east side of parking lot described above. Although this ordinarily would have been part of the Powell application, it was received too late for enclosure and to expedite the situation, is offered separately. Mr. Denune thought the fence should be 6’ tall in order to make the area safer, and Mr. Newkirk said the size doesn’t matter as long as it satisfies the neighbors. Mr. Newkirk said the application is for new fence connecting to and matching the existing fence. A wrought iron gate will be between the two properties for security and privacy. He will put a similar type fence across the open area. The code requires a fence around any parking lots with more than 4 spaces. He will bring to the Village Planner a sample gate style.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-114 WITH CONDITIONS: (1) FENCE IS TO BE 72” HIGH; (2) FENCE TO MATCH EXISTING FENCE; (3) APPLICANT TO PRESENT GATE PLANS TO VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Charles Whitman, 128 East Broadway – Change of Use

 Mr. Strayer said the application is to change the use from retail to food/drug/beverages. The applicant wishes to move Whit’s Frozen Custard from North Prospect Street to the spot where Hare Hollow was. Parking is no problem, as it is a lesser use. Applicant will submit application for awning later. Quoting Fred Wolf, Mr. Salvage said that this would make 6 food establishments. Barbara Hammond is concerned about having another restaurant rather than a retail shop, since retail is what draws people to Granville as a destination spot. Brian Newkirk said having a restaurant with people coming and going is better than an empty shop awaiting tenants. Drew McFarland said we all agree with Ms. Hammond in theory; we tried to get retailers in vain because of the high rentals. Nancy Graham shares Ms. Hammond’s concerns. We have lost 5 shops lately, and her customers are not coming into the James Store as much any more because there is not enough shopping available. Keith Myers spoke in favor of the application. It’s a slippery slope when the Village defines basic locations for businesses, and we have to rely on the market to manage this issue. Whit’s draws a lot of people. Mr. Salvage did not think GPC was the appropriate body to decide this issue. Matt McGowan thought this was an issue for the Chamber of Commerce. Village Council is not trying to keep any business from coming in. The problem is the high rent. Mr. Riffle noted empty storefronts are the worst thing downtown. We need to support businesses trying to move in Mr. Parris said we do have a problem with a shortage of retail downtown, but as far as us being the gatekeeper of who can go in there depends on what the code says. It’s frightening to see retail leaving, but where are the new businesses?

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 03-118 AS SUBMITTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Kathleen Reagan, 444 W. Broadway - Remodeling Mr. Strayer summarized the request for roof, windows, aluminum siding, and gutters. Roofing and gutters will match materials previously used, and the basic footprint will not change. A landscaping plan will be done later. Ms. Reagan further described the plan and materials. Vinyl siding will be applied after the old siding is removed. She loves old houses, and this one will be in form with its neighbors. She will enlarge the tiny window in the kitchen and will change the height of the window upstairs because of the fire code requirements, and other windows will be brought up to code. Mr. Riffle stated that sometimes the wood underneath the siding is in good shape and it may be cheaper to restore it and keep all window trim, and it will look nicer than vinyl. The applicant will consider this. Mr. Salvage wanted to be sure the Village Planner sees the materials. He would like to give the applicant the right to restore any wood siding.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-119 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT SAMPLES OF ROOF AND SIDING TO VILLAGE PLANNER BEFORE INSTALLATION; (2) APPLICANT HAS OPTION OF RESTORING WOOD SIDING UNDERNEATH THE ALUMINUM SIDING; (3) APPLICANT WILL BE ALLOWED AS NECESSARY TO CHANGE WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION TO MEET EGRESS AND FIRE REQUIREMENTS. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Prudential Residential One, 142 East Broadway – Awning Mr. Strayer said the applicant wants to replace the awning with a blue and white one of the same material. Mark Evans said they will replace the sign over the awning.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-120 AS SUBMITTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Prudential Residential One, 142 East Broadway – Sign

 The wall sign for the above business will be 10.6x2.76 sq.ft on the Prospect Street side. This is a multi-tenanted building and though we allow one wall sign per business, the applicant was approved for the variance when the original changeover was made 14 months ago. The sign over the awning will be painted to match the awning and use same lettering. The one on the side will also repeat the stripe design with the same lettering.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-121 AS SUBMITTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Powell) AND ITEMS A,B,C,D,E 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 SEPTEMBER 5, 2003. MR. RUFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: Sinnett House Mary Mulligan, who lives directly south of Sinnett House, and was concerned about the alley behind Sinnett House. Mr. Strayer said it is proposed to run along south side and end in a parking lot and loading dock. He invited her to come to his office tomorrow to view the plans for the house. Mr. McGowan said the alley is going to be closed off except for deliveries. Mr. Salvage added that they will leave the bush there and add a sidewalk. 

Other Comments: Brian Newkirk expressed thanks that their application was passed. His commitment to people is that they should be able to rent and buy buildings here. He wondered whether his situation was considered differently from Whit’s because people looked ahead at the parking. His businesses don’t have the required number of spaces and he felt he was singled out. Mr. Salvage reminded him that the drawing submitted was incomplete. Mr. Newkirk said they tried to come to agreement and move 1st Federal’s spaces around. He was afraid his wife’s business would be jeopardized for lack of parking. None of that happened, replied Mr. Salvage. “Decisions are made here, and we are sensitive to issues. We want to encourage businesses to thrive in the Village, and if you have further problems, we will put you on the agenda.” Mr. Parris added that we had no accurate drawing or contract or the number of spaces required. Drew McFarland assumed everything was OK with the sketch because they thought for a lesser use, they did not need a permit. Mr. Newkirk said it’s a good decision not to pave the lot. You have given me some good advice, and it’s all part of Village government.

Adjournment: 8:00 p.m.

Next Meetings: September 22 and October 13

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 8/25/03

 GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2003

 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: Matt McGowan Citizens Present: Drew McFarland, Pamela Powell, Sylvia Braunbeck, Cindy Farley, Mike Frazier, Ruth Owen Also Present: Tom Mitchell, Interim Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of August 11, 2003: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business: 

Edward and Donna Jenkins, 327 N. Pearl St - Modification Mr. Mitchell said the applicants wish to modify the approval previously given for a room addition over the garage. The modification shows a breezeway filled in with an extension of the kitchen. The previous plan showed a room above the garage. They wish to have a door and portico on the south side and there are a few other revisions to windows, etc. Mr. Jenkins said Tom Mitchell has been fabulous on the proposed changes. (1) On the previous lower level we wanted to go over the second floor, but this time we will go from the kitchen to the garage. Because of that, (2) the back door will be moved from the breezeway to the side with small portico to modify the flat side of the structure. (3) There will be a gothic window because the house was originally gothic revival. For the second floor addition over the garage there will not be a cathedral ceiling and no fan light over the windows, but there will be two sets of French doors over the back of the addition onto a back patio in the rear (4) Directly over that space will be another door for the alleyway for access to that area. The things that are ”iffy” are (1) On left and rear elevations we have smaller gothic windows if we can afford them. If not, they will be like the other windows, 6x6 double hung. (2) The little cupola over the garage and whimsy will go in oif we can afford it.

 Mr. Burriss asked about the roof plan and was told that this time it will come directly across and will not be evident from the street. Mr. Jenkins said they added to the plans the suggestions made at the last GPC meeting. The clapboard will go all the way to the ground, and all windows will match front windows of the house. They want to restore the house to what it originally was so the front and back will match. Mr. Burris thought this plan was not a whole lot different from the previous one. Ms. Lucier asked whether the windows will look like these drawings, and Mr. Jenkins said they are more pointed. Facing front, there are two windows with points and one on the left. They will be aligned and almost match the house. Mr. Riffle wished there could be a way to break up the massing, and Mr. Jenkins thought it looked better this way. Because of the basement space, it gives the structure more storage space. Mr. Burriss showed him how to break up the massing with a pediment, and Mr. Jenkins thought it would be more decorative and not as expensive. Mr. Salvage asked about whether the door on the driveway side with portico will have peaked roof, and Mr. Jenkins said it will be a flat roof with hidden gutters. Mr. Salvage asked about the 6” siding and Mr. Jenkins said it will cover the block. When we remove siding, we will have front and back to match. It will clearly be an addition but we don’t want it to be glaringly an addition. Mr. Burriss asked whether all front windows are gothic with gables. He said the applicant has done a good job so far and he is to be commended, but the existing porch with round columns was not original. Think about a gable over the side door with pediment to make both gables stronger and carry the shape of the front along the side. The roof line is awkward but if we go to triangles, it becomes stronger. Emphasize the gothic element, which is visible from the front. A pediment roof over the side door would be reminiscent of the front. Mr. Jenkins said they will eventually bring back the front porch, and he will take Mr. Burriss’ suggestions into account. He would like to find some early photos of the house. Mr. Parris noted that the reason this was tabled was that there was a lot going on and we wanted to be clear on exactly what we were going with. There was more in this application than in the old one. Mr. Salvage said as far as minor vs. major modification, he sees this as a refinement of what we approved last time. The door of the portico is the main change. The addition itself is a major issue, and he is comfortable with its being a minor modification. Mr. Burriss believed because of the footprint being the same and the rest of the changes being minor, it should be considered a technical correction. The applicant should be given option of 6x6 windows instead of gothic, a cupola, and gothic over door.

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

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 03-049M WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO PUT A PEDIMENT ABOVE THE GOTHIC WINDOW ON RIGHT ELEVATION TO BREAK UP ROOF MASSING; (2) APPLICANT HAS OPTION TO INSTALL A CUPOLA; (3) APPLICANT HAS THE OPTION TO INSTALL STANDARD DOUBLE-HUNG WINDOWS ON LEFT AND REAR ELEVATIONS WHERE A DOOR IS SHOWN; (4) APPLICANT HAS OPTION TO PUT A PEDIMENT OVER DOOR ON PORTICO ON RIGHT ELEVATION IF HE WISHES. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Pamela Powel/HER Real Estate, 230 East Broadway- Change of Use and Parking

 The applicant wishes to change the use of the first floor from a retail shop to an office. As a real estate has less traffic than a gift shop, this change would be no problem. The problem arises with the parking area behind the three houses. Drew McFarland explained the parking lot design, written, he said, by Brian Newkirk. Unfortunately, the figures do not match up with the number of spaces required for the three businesses and the two reserved for the First Federal Savings and Loan. Brian Newkirk thought the parking could be undesignated and in common, but that creates confusion. Mr. McFarland thought that paving the lot would increase the lot coverage. GPC needs something in writing that all will share the parking lot. Mr. Mitchell said a plot plan is needed showing what is there and where all the cars can park. Any decrease in width and length of spaces must be noted, as well as the space between the two buildings. Mr. McFarland thought Brian Newkirk would have to remove one tree in the parking lot. Mr. Burriss asked whether there is a water problem, and Mr. McFarland said that with the renovation, it was taken care of. One small leak was discovered in the Newkirk building but it was sealed when the source was found. The change of use cannot be approved without acceptable parking plans. Even though the real estate office wants to get started, this will have to go through BZBA for variances.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION 03-106. MR. PARRIS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Jenkins) AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF AUGUST 22, 2003. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: Granville Public Library Ruth Owen updated the group on the Library’s plans. They want to tear down the Pyle house and move Sinnett House to the Pyle lot, adding a driveway on the south. She showed a picture of how it might look. The lot is narrow and they will lop off the kitchen but try to retain the doctor’s office with ramp, possibly to be used as a public rest room. The Bicentennial Commission has accepted the moving project as their legacy and are charged with raising $150,000. The Library can offer $25,000. Contractors have already been contacted. The Library would ‘gift’ Sinnett House to the village. The Pyle land, owned by the Library, would be leased to the Village. Mike Frazier said they would like to start fund- raising right now and start construction in January to connect with events for the Bicentennial. Consensus of the GPC approved tearing down the Pyle House and moving Sinnett House to the lot. Ruth Owen said they would like to keep the tree but the contractors are afraid that digging will kill the roots. It would be better to take it down before it fell. 

Adjournment: 8:50 p.m.

Next Meetings: September 8 and 22

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 8/11/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION August 11, 2003

 Minutes

Members Present: Matt McGowan, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier Citizens Present: Stephen Baldwin Also Present: Tom Mitchell, Interim Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of July 28, 2003: Page 2: Mr Salvage wanted to change the sentence under Other Business: “The Chairman prepared and forwarded . . .Seth Dorman, which was adopted by the Planning Commission.” MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business: 

Edward and Donna Jenkins, 327 N. Pearl St - Modification Mr. Mitchell said the applicants wish to modify the approval previously given for a room addition. This 782 sq.ft addition would include a portico over the door and relocating a door and placing it between the two French doors at the bottom of the house. There are several several discrepancies between this plan and the original plan. The applicant was not present at this meeting. Mr. Salvage asked whether they will put a window on the garage and was told Yes. He thought these plans seemed vague and need to be more precise. He suggested tabling the application.

MR. PARRIS MOVED THAT WE TABLE APPLICATION 03-049M. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Salvage noted that we do have a specific amount of time to act on this, and if the applicant cannot return at the next meeting, he will have to start over.

Stephen and Rita Baldwin, 229 Summit Street – Enclose carport

 Mr. Mitchell explained that the applicant wishes to convert a one-car garage into a three-car garage. The two carports presently are located on either side of the garage. There will be a pedestrian door on the side. The enclosure will match existing siding. He noted that neither this garage nor the neighbor’s conform with setbacks. Mr. Baldwin said they want to enhance the property value and make a better appearance. The siding and color will match existing structure. Mr. Parris asked whether there is enough swing room and was told Yes, 8 ½’ and it would be tapered and flared out a little. Mr. Parris noted that when you change a structure, the grandfathered section is no longer valid. Mr. Salvage said all he is doing is adding walls Mr. Riffle asked whether a variance is necessary, and it was determined if the applicant paves the driveway, a lot coverage variance might be required. If you do pave it, Mr. Salvage stated, you will need to bring in a drawing showing you will not exceed the 50 per cent lot coverage.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-104. WITH THE NOTE THAT THE SIDING WILL MATCH EXISTING SIDING ON THE GARAGE AND THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE WILL MATCH EXISTING COLOR. IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO PAVE THE DRIVEWAY IN FRONT, WE ASK THAT HE PROVIDE THE VILLAGE PLANNER WITH A PLAN TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ADDITION ADHERES WITH VILLAGE REGULATIONS. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Baldwin) AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF AUGUST 8, 2003. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Business: Mr. Riffle wanted the Village Planner to review what we decided regarding on the color of B. Hammond’s storage garage Mr. Salvage remarked on the unsightliness of the Aladdin sidewalk sign.

Adjournment: 7:55 p.m.

Next Meetings: August 25 (Mr. McGowan will be absent) and September 8 Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

 

Planning Minutes 7/28/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 2003

 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Matt McGowan, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: none Citizens Present: Brian Corbett, Leon Habegger, Bob Gerano, Jim & Jodi Schmidt, Kay Bork, Collette Moore Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner; Tom Mitchell, Interim Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of July 14, 2003: Page 2, Ms. Lucier wanted to add in middle of page: “Ms. Lucier thought the intention is to make sure the primary structure remains primary, and she liked the draft language as proposed.” Mr. Salvage asked to have the following sentence the 12th line up from bottom of Page 3: “…is not fair. It is agreed that the restrictions and guidelines in the zoning code should be reviewed at a later date after a new planner is up to speed.” MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business: 

Jim and Jodi Schmidt, 218 East Maple Street - Fence Mr. Mitchell said that the applicants wish to (1) install new gothic top concave cedar picket fence in the side of the yard, and in the rear to replace lattice fence with the same fencing, 6’ high. (2) Black vinyl louvered shutters will be added to house and garage. Mr. Schmidt showed an actual shutter sample. It will be outside the trim, which is 4” on the side and 2” in the rear, added Ms. Schmidt. At the highest point the fence will be 42” high, and there will be a gate

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-088 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE FENCE BE PAINTED WHITE AND THAT THE VINYL SHUTTERS WILL BE PER SAMPLE PROVIDED TONIGHT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1830 Newark-Granville Road - Canopy

 Mr. Mitchell explained that the church wants to add a canopy to the front of the church, following the plans GPC approved in 1991. A cap will extend over what’s there now and will be full width and extend out toward the drive toward the grass island and cover the driveway, making a drive-through. It will not change the parking configuration. Mr. Burriss asked whether the current octagon detail will be used in the new portico, for this one breaks up the expanse of gable and it would be worth repeating. The representative replied that Yes, it will be there; it is just not in the plans. Mr. Burriss then asked about downspouts and was told that they will be right behind the car pictured in the photo at the corner and will go into tiling. The gutter color will match trim. Mr. Parris asked about lighting and was told it was on page A-4 and lights will be recessed underneath portico. One light will be in the ceiling and be on a timer. They will try to incorporate the old lantern lights but if they do not use them, they will leave one light on underneath. Mr. Burriss would like the Planner to approve the amount of light the lights will give out, and Mr. Parris said the person selling the lights should be able to give that information.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-089 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE LIGHTING BE APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER. WE WOULD LIKE THE OCTAGON ADDED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Public Library, 217 East Broadway - Sidewalk Sign

 Mr. Mitchell said they have applied for a plastic and vinyl sidewalk sign that conforms with regulations. It will be black and white and will have a removable section in which to insert special events. Kay Bork said they were going to place it in the front of the statue, but could either be on the step or in the main sidewalk. GPC members would rather not have it in the sidewalk. Ms. Lucier asked why don’t they place it in the alley and Ms. Bork said they are trying to encourage newcomers to attend events. The established residents already know what’s going on, so the alley is a less viable space. Ms. Bork said it will be used about once a month, placing it out a week before the event. Mr. Salvage said three colors are allowed and asked whether this includes the changeable area. Discussion arose about this issue, for the library would like to use colorful posters publicizing children’s events. It seems we have allowed more than three colors in the past, i.e., when the bookstore wants to feature a colorful book jacket. Ms. Lucier is not concerned with what the library puts up but is concerned about setting a precedent. The Village Planner will look up what was said in the Minutes for the Reader’s Garden sign. Mr. Salvage does not think more than three colors would require a variance. MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-090 WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT NOT BE PLACED ON THE MAIN SIDEWALK. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dave Black, 203 West Broadway - Enclosure

 Mr. Mitchell said the applicant proposes to enclose the portico attached to the garage and add another portico off what would now be storage area, smaller but redone with columns to go from where they are to the new section. The siding is to be board and bead. The garage is nonconforming in side setback, and the new part would be sized to conform. Pillars will be relocated straight out from where they are. Bob Gerano, Builder, said they will match existing siding and roofing with tongue and groove and put in a square smoothed-out column where round ones are now. It well have some reveal. The roof will extend over the three columns. The trim will be extended and will match. When asked about drainage, he said this is a very small area and should present no problems. Mr. Burriss asked about the window and was told they will put in the old window sash to break up the look. They could put the door on the same side as the garage so as to not disturb the patio and move the window to the other side. The door will be on the east side of the garage GPC discussed the window situation and it was agreed to put the window centered on the north side and door on the east side MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) NEW SIDING WILL MATCH EXISTING GARAGE AND ENTIRE STRUCTURE TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH; (2) WEST SIDE OF NEW ADDITION WILL BE 10’ FROM PROPERTY LINE; (3) ROOF DETAIL WILL MATCH EXISTING PORTICO; (4) PEDESTRIAN DOOR WILL BE LOCATED ON EAST SIDE; AND (5) WINDOW WILL BE PLACED ON CENTER SECTION ON THE NORTH SIDE. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Salvage wanted to note that ordinarily we would not accept such an incomplete application and drawing, but since this is such a small addition, we will let it go. Mr. Gerano thanked him.

Brian and Nora Corbett, 117 South Prospect Street – Fence

 Mr. Mitchell said the applicants are replacing the privacy fence exactly and installing a skate board structure, which does not conform with the side yard setback. Mr. Dorman noted that the skateboard facility does not contribute to the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Corbett stated that the fence is already done, but since it is an exact duplicate of the old fence, he thought he did not need approval. It will be cedar, stained red. Ms. Lucier asked about the poles in the photograph and was told they will be trimmed down to 6’. Mr. Salvage asked where the fence goes and was told it goes along the back and replaces the old one exactly. The group wanted more information about the skateboard, and Mr. Corbett said it is not set in the ground as a permanent structure and will be taken in for the winter. When Mr. Parris asked about the noise, Mr. Corbett said he would address any complaints that arise. Ms. Lucier noted they are in the middle of a commercial district with a parking lot and a garage on either side. Mr. Corbett said it will be screened, Mr. Burriss has no problem with the ramp, knowing what a good job the applicant has done so far, but he is concerned about the basket weave fence, which is not complementary to the house, and hoped it would be removed.

 MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE 030-092 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE EXTRA TALL POSTS ON THE ON THE SKATEBOARD BE SHORTENED TO MATCH THE FENCE. THE APPLICANT NEEDS APPROVAL FROM BZBA FOR VARIANCE.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMs A,B,C,D,E 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 JUL7 25, 2003. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Business: The chairman has prepared and forwarded to members a proposed resolution of thanks to Seth Dorman, which was adopted by the Planning Commission and it is attached herewith.

Adjournment: 8:30 p.m. Next Meetings: August 11 (Ms. Lucier will be absent) August 25 (Mr. McGowan will be absent) Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

 

Planning Minutes 7/14/03

 GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION July 14, 2003 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Matt McGowan, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: None Citizens Present: John Compton, Scott Walker Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of June 23, 2003: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business: 

First Federal Savings, 126 North Prospect Street – Building Renovations {Mr. Riffle recused himself from this application.} Mr. Dorman said that for their renovations, the bank wants to upgrade the exterior and give the building a face lift. The roof would be reconfigured and shingled with dimensional asphalt shingles, and three dormers with real windows will be added. There will be a recessed porch and a little patio with landscaping. The brick on three sides will match the existing and they will paint the east side. The footprint will remain the same. The off-site parking spaces were approved by the BZBA last Thursday. Scott Walker said after the work session, they changed the exterior design of the second floor and added cedar siding on the south, and wood trim, including wood shutters. There will be a garden wall of brick where the kids can eat their ice cream. He showed brick, shingle and paint color samples. The second floor is for storage. Lights will be added in the recessed porch, and a pair of decorative light fixtures will be on either side of the south door. John Compton said the rendering does not show the actual color of the sign. They will come back later with a sign application. It will be a 12 square foot sign, with metal posts on each side, made of wrought iron. It will be smaller than Unizan’s. They will have lights that shine up from the ground. Mr. Salvage thought the faux windows on the south side really improve the appearance. 

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-080. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED 4 TO 0 WITH 1 ABSTENTION (MR. RIFFLE). 

Work Session: Village Ordinance Changes

 Mr. Dorman and the Law Director have been trying to make some major changes and updating the language of the document, and they are looking for GPC’s comments at this time before the changes go to BZBA and Village Council. A couple of statements have been added to aid the Village Planner in his work, among them the ability to revoke a permit or issue a stop order. Page 13. Ms. Lucier was concerned about the distinction between ‘occupancy’ and ‘use.’ Mr. Dorman said that after he goes out and inspects a new single family residence, and finds it in order; he will issue a Certificate of Occupancy. This is different from a building permit. A building has to be finished before it can be sold. Ms. Lucier wondered if it is appropriate for a building to be used before it is finished, and this is something the Law Director will think about. The group agreed that the Law Director should look at this section. Page 21. Mr. Salvage suggested changing the word ‘predicament’ in line 25 to ‘situation.’ Mr. Dorman said the language comes down from the Supreme Court. However, the GPC recommended changing it to ‘situation. ‘ Page 23, Line 15 and 18. Mr. Salvage questioned the need for sections (a) and (b), and Mr. Parris thought we shouldn’t be making restrictions. Ms. Lucier thought the intention is to make sure the primary structure remains primary, and she liked the draft language as proposed. We have lot coverage restrictions now, added Mr. Parris, and people will still need to come before us for approval. Mr. Dorman said lot coverage only applies to the first floor of a garage. It’s a policy decision. Do we want large garage structures in town? There are other districts where big barns would fit in. It’s hard to visualize massing from a picture. By a 3-2 vote, the Planning Commission is recommending the sections will deleted. Page 23, Line 28. Mr. Salvage asked whether this is a problem, and Mr. Dorman said there have been problems where projects are under construction and builders leave junk around, but they usually keep supplies in their trucks. If they are using the supplies, it is not a problem. Ms. Lucier said if it is not a problem, it is not a hardship. Mr. Parris wondered how one could enforce this evenhandedly. Page 23, Line 35. Again, Mr. Salvage questioned storing things outside. This is for the yard, replied Mr. Dorman. People don’t like to see ‘stuff’ in the yard but it’s OK in the driveway. Mr. Parris said PUDs have covenants and people are aware of restrictions when they buy, but adding restrictions after the fact is not fair. Mr. McGowan pointed out that property owners are limited by zoning restrictions regarding these items already. It’s a problem of interpretation and difficult to administer evenhandedly and an enforcement nightmare. Mr. Dorman replied that it has not been a big issue; you have to make some judgment calls. Page 33, Line 32. Mr. Salvage said we don’t want to force out businesses who want to build. Drive-throughs should be permitted. Page 35, Line 28. Consensus agreed that ‘shall be provided’ should be changed to ‘may be required to provide’ Ms. Lucier wondered what a ‘major street’ was, and Mr. Dorman replied that the Comprehensive Plan has provided a roadway classification system, but it is not consistent with ODOT’s roadway classification system. The group agreed unanimously to change the language. Page 35, Line 43. Mr. Dorman wants to remove any reference to PCD from this PUD section and add them to the PCD section. Also referenced on Page 36. The Law Director will look at Pages 35 and 36. Page 37, Lines 5, 6, 7, and 18. Mr. Salvage thinks this is unrealistic and Mr. Parris agrees. Mr. Dorman said there are no longer standards or requirements, just guidelines. If this is a real issue, GPC needs to take time and look at the guidelines, but he does not think you can accomplish this now. PDDs are about flexibility. Mr. Salvage wants to remove this section and let the applicant come in. Page 38, Line 34. Mr. Salvage said there are floodplain guidelines, and why can’t a person fill in a floodplain? Ms. Lucier did not think GPC should be discussing these policy issues. We should make recommendations within the scope of the GPC. Page 38, Line 47. Mr. Salvage wondered why parking is limited to behind buildings. Page 39, Line 1. Mr. Salvage thought this item unnecessarily strict. Mr. Dorman said people don’t like to see a sea of asphalt. It’s an aesthetic thing and a safety thing. Page 43, Mr. Salvage finds this page unnecessarily strict. Page 44, Materials. Mr. Salvage thinks chimneys can be of other materials. Pag3, 45, Mr. Salvage does not think drive- throughs should be prohibited in the front. Page 45, Line 18., Mr. Salvage wondered why garages may only be 9’ wide. Mr. Burris wanted to invite Keith Myers to be involved in any future discussions in terms of changes to the development guidelines for the Planned Development Districts. It was agreed that the restrictions and guidelines of the zoning code should be reviewed and updated after the new planner is up to speed.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER NEW BUSINESS (1ST FEDERAL) AND WE FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF JULY 9, 2003. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Business: The chairman referred to the memo from Seth Dorman regarding his resignation. He offered congratulations on the new position and said it is with deep regret that we will lose him. At the next meeting he will present a resolution of commendation. ”You are the best Planner we have had and we wish you well and Good Luck!” Seth said. “This is a bittersweet decision, but the opportunity is too great to be passed up. You all will be missed.”

Adjournment: 9:05 p.m. Next Meetings: July 28 and August 11 Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 6/23/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 2003 Minutes

Members Present: Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair). Matt McGowan was welcomed as the Village Council representative Members Absent: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier Citizens Present: Mark Clapsadle, Bob Gerano, David Bussan, Tracy Smith Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of May 28, 2003: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Minutes of June 9, 2003: MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Old Business: 

David Bussan, 420 East Broadway – Deck Extension

 Mr. Dorman said this is a modification of an approval granted January 13, 2002. The request is to extend the deck from 8’x12’ to 12’x19’. The deck will be wrapped with panels of siding and painted to match the house siding and help to blend the deck with the house. There will be a stairway to access the deck from the back yard. A variance is required for side yard setback. Bob Gerano, contractor, stated that the encroachment would be no deeper than on the current plan. David Bussan said there is no problem with the east neighbor, and the west side is a rental property. Mr. Dorman said the all neighbors within 200’ would be notified of the variance hearing.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO FIND THAT APPLICATION #02-002M IS A MINOR MODIFICATION. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-002M AS PRESENTED, SUBJECT TO THE BZBA’S APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

 New Business:

Clifton Crais, 234 North Pearl Street – Garage

 Mr. Dorman said a year ago the applicant got approval for work on the rear of the house, and now he is requesting a detached 1 1/2 car, board and batten garage with asphalt shingles on the roof. There would be galvanized gutters and several windows and a pedestrian door. A variance will be required for the side yard setback, the garage is planned to be located 3’ from the property line rather than the required 10’. Bob Gerano, contractor said this drawing is very similar to one the GPC approved at 436 North Granger Street. Mr. Crais wants to construct a similar structure with a steep roof. He needs the space to make the turn. Mr. Salvage noted that most of the garages in that area are very close to the lot line. Mr. Riffle asked whether the project is far enough from the tree to not damage roots and was told yes. The group had problems determining the orientation, and Mr. Salvage suggested tabling since this plan is lacking a site plan, property line definition, location of trees, and elevations with correct references, curb cuts, location of utility pole and driveway, and exact size of garage. Mr. Gerano agreed to table the application.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #03-066 PENDING SUBMISSION OF FINAL PROJECT DETAILS. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Broadway Deli, 126 East Broadway – Signage

Mr. Dorman said the application is for temporary sidewalk café signs. The applicant would like to put out her metal tables and chairs, but the chairs say “Coca-Cola,” and therefore must be approved by the Planning Commission. Each sign is 0.19 square feet, totaling 1.9 square feet of signage. The drawing submitted indicates the location of the tables and chairs in accordance with the ordinances. Tracy Smith added that they want four planters to delineate the café perimeter. She has no pictures of the chairs. Mr. Riffle requested that the chairs are kept in a straight line so it’s easy for people to walk through the area. Planters have to be removed when the café is taken down for the year.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-069 AS PRESENTED. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Scott and Anne Gillie, 1075 Newark-Granville Road - Addition

Mr. Dorman said the Gillies are requesting a 600 square foot, first floor addition and dormers would be added to the second floor, opening up additional square footage on that level. Variances are necessary for both side setbacks. Mark Clapsadle said it’s hard to calculate square footage of the dormers. The ridge of the dormers would not extend above the ridge of the house, and they will maintain the Greek Revival style. Encroachment into the side yard setback is hard to avoid in this open space district because the lot is so narrow and the setback requirement is 50’. The existing structure already encroaches into the setback, and they are not encroaching any further. Mr. Clapsadle added that there is a screen porch on the back, and the addition will be the same depth as the porch. The dormers will bring the back into the egress code. Originally they were going to add 4 bedrooms, but they have scaled back their plans. Mr. Riffle thinks the plan is better this way. MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-070 AS PRESENTED. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: The work session on the final draft of the Zoning Ordinance changes was postponed until the full membership was present.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Bussan) AND ITEMS A,B, AND C. UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Crais, Broadway Deli, and Gillie) AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF JUNE 20, 2003. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:12 p.m. Next Meetings: July 14 and July 28

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 6/9/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION June 9, 2003 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: None. Citizens Present: Drew McFarland, Scott Walker, John Compton, Barb Hinterschied, Chris & Sherry Campbell, Steve Mershon, Paul Thompson, Richard Pinkerton, Thomas Linzell, David Meleca, Sarah Wallace, Herb Murphy, Jr. Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner; Betty Allen, Secretary Citizens’ Comments: None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of May 28, 2003: Postponed until next meeting

New Business: 

Chris & Sherry Campbell, 215 North Pearl Street – Fence and Retaining Wall

 Mr. Dorman said the application is for (1) a 4’ tall picket fence located on north side yard with return to NE side and to NW side of house, and (2) replace crumbling retaining wall with two-tiered 5” Briar Hill stone in front of house and alongside driveway to front of house. Ms. Campbell said it’s a good-neighbor fence with the finished side facing the north neighbor. It will be close to the property line, and she will add plantings. It will be painted white.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-057 AS PRESENTED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

W. W. Bancroft LLC, 230 East Broadway – Change of Use

 Mr. Dorman said the application is to change the use on the second floor from a gift shop to a professional office. Drew McFarland stated the space was at one time the office of The Sentinel. An office use is less demanding than retail use, so it should not be a problem. It was sold to Bancroft two hours ago. He said he will move his law office upstairs, and the first floor is for rent, and no change of use for that space is requested at this time. Mr. Riffle asked about access and was told it is through the front door and up the stairs. They have considered a second door, but not right now. It was built as a residence.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-059 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Richard Pinkerton, 1317 Newark-Granville Road – Carriage House, Deck & Patio

 Mr. Dorman introduced the application for (1) a 1 ½ story three-bay carriage house with one pedestrian door. It will have 1,383 square feet and siding, trim, and windows will match the house. (2) A new deck and brick patio will be built and will be water-sealed after a year. The deck will not have a railing but will have bench rails around it. The existing sheds will be removed. Mr. Burriss asked about whether or not the dormers for the proposed carriage house could be shed to match the dormers on the house and which is more consistent with a bungalow-type house, and Mr. Pinkerton said they just preferred two dormers rather than one. These are really two dormers separated by a wall. Mr. Burriss thought it would be OK if the dormers were separated and should have more reference to the house. Mr. Salvage said AROD is not an issue, but he thinks we could do it by recommendation. Mr. Parris said you won’t see it much from anywhere else.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-061. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Betty Morrison, Various Locations – Temporary Signs

 Mr. Dorman said the three real-estate sized signs will be located at the IGA, Dr. Scarpitti’s office, and 127 East Elm Street, to advertise the 2003 Annual Antiques Show. The colors will be red, black, and blue and will be up until the show is over. 

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-063. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

St. Edwards Church, 785 Newark-Granville Road – Church Addition/Renovation

 Mr. Dorman said the application would require three variances for BZBA consideration: (1) TCOD setback requirement; (2) parking space dimensions; and (3) parking layout/double striping. They plan to reduce the number of curb cuts to two. Having taken into consideration the suggestions made at the Work Session, David Meleca, Architect, presented the formal application for the 14,498 square foot addition at this time. The site access would include a loop road. There are three existing homes to be removed. Currently they have 120 parking spaces, and the area needs to be redesigned to accommodate 1200 churchgoers and fulfill the requirement. The existing church will be used for narthex/gathering space. A new portico/porch will face the parking lot and a new side door will be on the south. The cruciform plan is to seat 950 people, expandable to 1200. For the exterior elevation they wanted rural classicism from early American vernacular. He described the exterior materials and said there would be a pathway towards the road to meet the existing sidewalk. It will have a cupola and large clear glass windows 15’ tall and 8’ wide. The east side will have a new portico and cupola over the narthex Mr. Parris noted it is a beautiful addition to the community and thanked the applicant for completeness and detail of materials brought to us. The work session helped to give an understanding. Mr. Salvage stated it is well in line with what was discussed earlier. Mr. Main asked whether the rectory would be taken down because at V.C. they said it would not be removed. Mr. Meleca said there are two rectories, and the current one is in front of the Dellard house. The one attached to the church is being removed, along with three small houses on the west. Mr. Dorman said the Planning Commission has the flexibility to approve the setback issue as part of the approval. They are already in the TCOD with the existing parking lot, and the plan only increases it by 5’ or so. They will gain green space by removing existing buildings. 

 MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-062, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: (1) THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAINS APPROVAL FROM THE BZBA FOR VARIANCES IN PARKING SPACE SIZE AND A VARIANCE FOR SINGLE RATHER THAN DOUBLE STRIPING OF THE PARKING SPACES. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: 

First Federal Savings and Loan, 126 North Prospect - Renovations

 Paul Thomas, President, said they are in contract to purchase the building and they want to find out about requirements, including variances necessary. It’s a small lot and has not much space between building and property line. They want to make the building’s south side more attractive with a brick façade and raising the pitch somewhat. Bringing the building closer to the street makes it feel more like downtown. Three dormers and round columns will be added to the front The reason for moving is that they do not own the building they are in, the new building is smaller and they would have no driveway or drive-up window, but they will add an ATM machine. Mr. Burriss would like to see more detail on the south side to relieve the wide expanse, maybe add a couple of blind windows on the second floor to look like they are shuttered. He suggested a steel six-panel door on the south side. Mr. Parris thought lights added around the south door would help, though there is not much space there. Mr. Salvage asked about staff parking, and was told they have been in touch with owners of adjoining building and they can have three or four off-street spaces for employees just a short walk away. Recommendations were made by GPC members: Bring in a lighting package, proposed signage, and wrought iron details.

Comments for the Good of the Order:

 Mr. Main announced to the group that this is to be his last attendance at GPC and someone else will be taking his place because he has a commitment now on Monday evenings. He said he has taken all GPC comments back to V.C. for their consideration. Mr. Salvage thanked him for his very helpful participation.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,C, D and E, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF JUNE 5, 2003. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:21 p.m. Next Meetings: June 23 and July 14 

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 5/28/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION May 28, 2003 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Members Absent: Richard Main, Richard Salvage (Chair) Citizens Present: Adam Ross, Leta and Greg Ross, Amanda Warner, Steve West, Ed & Donna Jenkins, Fred Wolf, Neica Raker, Melissa Hartfield, Art Chonko, Carol Whitt Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner; Betty Allen, Secretary Citizens’ Comments: None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of April 28, 2003: MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Minutes of May 5, 2003: Page 2, center, add student housing to Ms. Lucier’s list of possibly enabled uses. MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business: 

F.D. Wolf Associates, 134 East Broadway - Awning The application is to replace the old awning at Victoria’s with one of the same dimensions. The new color is striped heather beige classic. The building will be repainted as will the sign over the door, and no additional signage is requested. The designer Neica Raker explained the color plan and said there is to be no lettering on the new awning.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-055. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Carol Whitt, 139 West Maple Street – Fence and Deck

 Mr. Dorman explained the request for the deck with overhead grid structure on the second floor on an existing porch. Ms. Whitt also wants to have an 8’ section of white picket fence to screen the trash can. Ms. Whitt said the railing on the porch will stay. She had planned to use treated lumber which would weather for the porch, but Mr. Parris told her that treated lumber does not weather and it should be stained, and Ms. Whitt agreed to put something on it. In answer to a question by Mr. Burriss, she said the porch would have four upright posts. The structure will not touch the wall or roof. Mr. Burriss noted that none of the structure would be visible from the front façade.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-045 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE FINISH FOR THE ARBOR BE SUBMITTED TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR FINAL APPROVAL; (2) THAT THE FENCE MATCH THE EXISTING FENCE AND BE PAINTED WHITE; AND (3) THAT THE ARBOR MATCH THE PLANS SUBMITTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Area Chamber of Commerce – Temporary Sidewalk Signs

 Mr. Dorman said the request is for 3 temporary sidewalk signs for the following 2003 GACC Events: (1) Farmer’s Market, (2) Street Scenes, and (3) the Antiques Fair. Melissa Hartfield said the (1) Farmer’s Market signs will be out each Friday and Saturday, June 7 through October 7 in front of PNB and Prudential Realtors. The wording on the sign will change to the correct location, on North Main Street. (2) The sign for Street Scenes will be out June 13-28 and advertise the Merchant Sidewalk Sale and Creative Artisan Show, which will be on June 27 and 28. (3) The display dates for the Antiques Fair will be September 19 to October 4 for the October 4 event. Mr. Burriss noted that they have always done a good job of taking in the signs at night.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-046. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Donna and Edward Jenkins, 327 North Pearl Street – Addition

 Mr. Dorman said the application is for a 787 square foot bedroom and family room addition on the second floor over the garage. It will be finished to match the house. Mr. Jenkins said the addition will have siding coming all the way down, and they will repaint when they have the funds. The windows will have 6 over 6 mullions. The ridge line will be lower than the house. It will not be visible from the street. There are no corner posts, but when they can afford it, they will remove the vinyl siding and make it look more like it did before. Mr. Burriss would not be opposed to using corner boards; that would be a detail that the house originally had. If they want it in the main structure, that would be OK. We would be in favor of higher detail. If they want to get started on it now, that would make sense rather than doing it twice. The applicant said the roofing material would look like slate. Mr. Burriss said if they are using wood siding, they must be careful about dampness from the hill. Mr. Jenkins said they will have a system to take care of diverting all the water along the house. The applicant noted they will be removing the Anderson windows on the second floor rear. The free-style window will be returned to a traditional window. There will be two French doors because the front yard is inaccessible, but they don’t want a cathedral ceiling. They will go to a flat window. They are hoping to find an old gothic window and frame for the bridge. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-049, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE TRIM BOARD AND WINDOW SURROUND DETAILS AS WELL AS ANY OTHER DETAILS THE APPLICANT FEELS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, TO TIE THE ADDITION IN WITH WHAT HE WOULD EVENTUALLY LIKE TO RESTRORE THE MAIN STRUCTURE TO, BE REVIEWED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Amanda Warner, 204 South Main Street – Freestanding Sign

 Mr. Dorman said the application is for a free- standing dark green and white sign at the applicant’s new business on the second floor. It would have two posts and be in the right-of-way, and a variance is needed for the number of free-standing signs in this multi-tenant building. The GPC has approved changes of uses for both floors. The sign for the other tenant, which existed when the change of use was approved, is also in the right-of- way. Ms. Lucier asked whether Ms. Warner has talked to the other tenant about sharing the signpost, but she would prefer having her own sign. This would clarify the location of the entry door. Ms. Warner prefers a bigger sign Mr. Burriss wants to be reassured that the two signs are consistent in design and location. It could be somewhat lower as long as the design is consistent. Mr. Parris applied the request to the criteria for variance for two free-standing signs:

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 dual-entrance is a special circumstance, and we have granted variances for other multi-tenanted buildings 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. Other multi-tenanted buildings have their own signs, such as at The Elms next door. Some of that signage was approved with different facades in mind. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. No. 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. No. 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. BURRISS MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE FOR APPLICATION #03- 050 BE APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Ms. Warner is willing to try to make her sign consistent with the other one, with the same setback, pole, and hardware, similar graphics and size. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-050 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE PROPOSAL BE AMENDED TO HAVE THE SAME SETBACK, SAME POLE WITH THE SAME BRACKET STYLE AND SIZE AS THE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN ON THAT LOT; (2) THE SIGN FACE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME WIDTH AS THE EXISTING SIGN, BUT COULD BE LONGER; AND (3) A FINAL DRAWING FOR THE SIGN SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR FINAL APPROVAL. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Denison University, 201 North Mulberry Street – Porch Enclosure

{Mr. Riffle recused himself from this application.} Mr. Dorman said the application is for a west side porch enclosure at Cleveland Hall in order to add office space, a new exit from the classroom, and a concrete retaining wall connected to the existing wall. Siding and roofing will match existing materials. Windows would have the same light pattern. They will also work on the northwest corner of the building. Art Chonko provided additional details for the group. MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-052. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Granville Shopping Center, 484 South Main Street – Parking Lot Renovation

 Mr. Dorman reminded the group that this has been tabled. The application submitted almost two years ago was tabled at the September 10, 2001 meeting. They will repave the lot, re-stripe and add islands. They want to add sidewalks from Main Street. Four variances are needed from the BZBA: (1) Parking lot screening; it is not practical to put a row of trees across the entrance; (2) dimensions of spaces; 10’wide and 20‘ long is required, but spaces with a 9’ width and 18’ length are requested; (3) layout of lot—they need double striping lines 2’ apart and are proposing single striped lines; and (4) tree plantings; they are asking for four smaller trees rather than large trees.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION #01-125 OFF THE TABLE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Leta Ross said they want to save space at the ATM for overflow parking. Mr. Burriss does not want to see a blank building wall at the end of a nice allay. For the pedestrian walks, he hopes to see a clear differentiation of where they are, maybe with cobblestone. He said the Rosses have gone a long way to breaking up the parking lot and it would be good to break it up with some bands of other material. He then asked about lighting and poles, which should be consistent but not necessarily identical to what the Village has installed in recent years. The spokesman described the lighting and the islands and landscaping. He said all sidewalks are 5’ wide. Islands are 6” above surface, curved all the way around except for sidewalks. Mr. Burriss wants a clear indication of where the pedestrian crossings are. This application will be approved contingent upon approval from the BZBA, the Village Engineer. Mr. Parris was concerned about the ability of trucks to make the curve. He also asked whether the project might be approved in two phases, and the group decided it would be beneficial to approve it all at once. Leta Ross said they have major drainage problems to address.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #01-125, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT CROSSWALKS BETWEEN SECTIONS OF SIDEWALK BE ARTICULATED IN SOME MANNER; (2) THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN BE AMENDED TO REMOVE ONE TREE FROM THE BED BETWEEN THE ATM DRIVE AND THE PARKING LOT; (3) THAT DETAILS FOR LIGHT POLES AND FIXTURES BE SUBMITTED TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR FINAL APPROVAL; (4) THAT THE BZBA APPROVE THE VARIANCES; (5) THAT THE TREE & LANDSCAPE COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN; AND (6) THAT THE VILLAGE ENGINEER REVIEW AND APPROVE THE SITE PLAN FOR DRAINAGE. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 It was also noted that the Planning Commission encourages the adoption of this plan by the other boards and officials that still need to review and approve it. Mr. Burriss noted the crabapple trees around the bank are approaching their life expectancy, and consistency is needed across the lot. Trees help lampposts from being so alone. He likes both trees and shrubs or hedges. Let the Tree and Landscape Commission determine the best plantings. 

Finding of Fact: 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (IGA) AND ITEMS A, B, C, D, E, AND F 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 MAY 23, 2003. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9:40 p.m. Next Meetings: June 9, and June 23, 2003. The August 25 meeting is cancelled unless something unforeseen appears. Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 5/5/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: None Citizens Present: Jeff & Thalia Oster, David Graham, Brian Crock, Tom Prieto, Dorothy Mann, Paul Enke, David Meleca Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of April 28, 2003: Postponed until next meeting

New Business: 

St. Edward’s Church, 785 Newark-Granville Road – Zoning Amendment The Public Hearing closed without comment.

Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant wishes to change the zoning from SRD-A to Institutional District. GPC will be making a recommendat6ion to Village Council on their finding. Staff finds this application complete, and notices to property owners were completed on time. It is not necessary to notify the State Director of Transportation. Attorney David Graham introduced Monsignor Paul Enke and Architect David Meleca and made a PowerPoint presentation. The church owns 15.406 acres which they would like to rezone. The current rectory is not part of the request for rezoning. The process to be followed is: (1) tonight’s hearing; (2) appearance before Village Council; and (3) request addition and renovation to GPC. The request is that the zoning map be amended to change zoning from SRD-A to ID and includes only the church properties. The ID zoning is more appropriate for churches. In considering this request, the applicant looked at the project and how it will affect Granville, the surrounding area, and the property itself.

Benefits to the Granville community are as follows: (1) To facilitate the planned church addition and renovation (2) To allow the church to improve its ministry to the community (3) To ensure future civic, religious and community use of the property 

Benefits to the area are as follows: (1) Strengthen the historical and architectural character of the area (2) Enhance and expand classical architecture (3) Assure future civic and community use of a property in a key access point to the village (4) Enhance and protect green space and landscaping in TCOD

 Benefits to the property and area surrounding are as follows: (1) Allow for improvement of the property (2) Institutional district guidelines are more flexible (3) Renovation will result in better access and traffic flow

Having fulfilled all procedural requirements of the zoning ordinance and for the reasons explained, the applicant requests that in accordance with Section 1143.04(e), the GPC recommend to Village Council that the zoning map be amended as requested. In looking at the ordinances, Ms. Lucier noted that in Chapter 1169, permitted uses in the ID, it seems to have been written for Denison needs, and if we recommend this zoning change, are we enabling something to be built that could not be built under residential, such as homeless shelter, senior housing and student dormitories, and do we feel comfortable with that? Mr. Salvage does not know that those would be permitted under ID and does not think it was written with Denison in mind. Anything the applicant desires to build in the future would come before the GPC. Mr. Main added that only the portion that lays in the TCOD currently is in the purview of the Planning Commission. 

Mr. Salvage applied the request to the criteria for amendment of the code: A, Compatibility of the proposed amendment to adjacent land use, adjacent zoning, and to appropriate plans for the area. Having received no adverse comments to the request, GPC is satisfied with the land use proposed. B. Relationship of the proposed amendment to access and traffic flow. It would improve traffic flow with two main entrances and eliminate one curb cut. C. Relationship of the amendment requested to the public health, safety and general welfare. GPC does not believe there would be any impact in these areas. D. Relationship of the proposed use to the adequacy of available services and to general expansion plans and the capital improvement schedule. The proposed amendment and improvement will have no impact on available services or general expansion plan

Mr. Burriss noted that a valid point has been made for this request. This is a change that should be recommended and having participated in renovation of another church, he feels the GPC should proceed with this recommended change. Mr. Riffle added that the church would be able to add-on no matter which district it’s in, so this is beneficial to everybody. Dotty Mann, neighbor, asked whether this would preclude them from what they might do under residential, and Mr. Salvage replied that it would, but the applicant has made the decision that rezoning is in the best interest of their property.

MR. PARRIS MOVED THAT THE GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP BE GRANTED AS REQUESTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dr. Jeff Oster, 1179 Cherry Valley Road – Freestanding Sign

 Mr. Dorman said the application is for a double- sided, free-standing sign of 18 square feet, aluminum with wood clad exterior and lustreboard finish, that would be installed 20’ from the edge of the pavement. It will be 5’3” tall, with a dark green background and white letters. Dr. Oster feels the green color will fit in well with the community and he wants it in line with the road, but they have a challenge with tree branches being so low. He hopes to give it a definite commercial flavor in this residential area. It will be externally lit, and he does not know about landscaping yet. The Rambling Rose and this property will share a driveway. Mr. Burriss feels it would be in the interest of the community to keep a consistency of setback and quality with the Rambling Rose and the New Day Spa signs and that lighting plans should be approved by Mr. Dorman.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-041 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE SETBACK BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SETBACK OF THE RAMBLING ROSE SIGN; AND (2) THAT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN BE SUBMITTED TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR APPROVAL. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: 

 Mr. Salvage has prepared a draft recommendation for the church, and a final copy will be attached to these minutes.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT FOR APPLICATION #03-022 AS READ BY MR. SALVAGE. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT FOR ITEM B UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Oster) AND WE FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF MAY 2, 2003. MS LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:35 p.m. Next Meetings: May 28 and June 9, 2003. The August 25 meeting is cancelled unless something unforeseen appears.

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 4/28/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION April 28, 2003 Minutes

Members Present: Mark Parris (Vice-Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Jack Burriss, Barbara Lucier, Tim Riffle, and Richard Main (Council Representative) Members Absent: None. Citizens Present: Alan Miller, Clifton Crais, Fred Wolf, Bea Eisenberg, John Noblick, Kristi Pfau Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of April 14, 2003: Page 6, Add Mr. Salvage’s paragraph to top of the page, regarding total sign area for the lot; and change “Mr. Salvage,” to “Mr. Parris,” at the beginning of paragraph 5 where it starts “Mr. Salvage opened the discussion.”

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

Old Business: 

Mound-Builders Real Estate, 130 East Broadway – Sidewalk Sign Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant is requesting approval for a sidewalk sign to be located in front of the business. The sign would be 7.65 square feet, plastic with a white base, the logo is at the top with a dry erase board at the bottom, and it would be double-sided. Mr. Parris was trying to remember why we tabled this the last time, and was told that in addition to the applicant not being present, there was a question as to the total number of colors. Mr. Dorman said the picture may not be clear but there are 3 colors, including the white base the logo is blue and green. Ms. Lucier raised the issue of the computer in the front window (which scrolls the company’s real estate listings) and whether or not that can be considered a sign. If so, the applicant may be over the maximum number of signs allowed per storefront. Mr. Dorman promised to look into the issue.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-016. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. FD Wolf Associates, 134 East Broadway – Temporary Umbrella Signs

 Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant is requesting approval for umbrella signs. The Village Council’s Sidewalk Café Ordinance for this year stated that all café furniture advertising a product must obtain a sign permit. My analysis at the last meeting was incorrect as I was treating these signs as permanent; technically they are temporary signs. To summarize again, the applicant would use the same umbrellas as last year; each umbrella has six panels with the words “Velvet Ice Cream;” each sign being 1.29 square feet in area. Mr. Parris discussed again his confusion over how the Planning Commission is to handle sidewalk cafés and their associated signage. In the end he summarized by suggesting that the Village Council anticipates the Planning Commission would decide for themselves how to handle signs of this nature and Mr. Main concurred. Mr. Salvage asked for any questions or comments about the application, and he stated he is satisfied the signs are appropriate for the Village.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-017 AS SUBMITTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Parris thanked the applicant for his patience, understanding that he became a “guinea pig,” in regards to temporary signage for sidewalk cafés, and he does appreciate the applicant’s patience.

New Business: 

Alan Miller, 334 Summit Street – Garden Shed

Mr. Dorman stated the applicant is requesting approval to install a garden shed in the rear yard. The garden shed would be 8’ x 10’, with a 4’ wide porch roof on the east side of the structure. The shed would be constructed of wood, sitting on skids, with a composite roof to match the roof color of the house. The applicant has indicated that the siding would come from a century-old barn. Variances are necessary for the shed’s proposed location, for both side and rear yard setbacks. Mr. Burriss asked the applicant if the saw-tooth detail at the bottom of the gable, shown in the elevation, was proposed for this structure and was told yes. He then asked if the applicant planned to finish the siding or stick with the weathered wood look, and was told that the siding would not be finished. Mr. Parris asked about the setback issues, and Mr. Dorman stated that in the Village Residential District, the code calls for 10’ side and rear yard setbacks, and the applicant is proposing 5’ setbacks for the west side and rear yard setbacks. When asked, the applicant indicated that locating the shed at 10’ from the property lines would put it in the middle of his very small backyard. Ms. Lucier noted that other outbuildings on that block are as close as or closer to their property lines than the applicant is proposing to locate his shed.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-031 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT WE DON’T EXPECT THE STRUCTURE TO BE FINISHED; AND THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO VARIANCES BEING OBTAINED FOR THE STRUCTURE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Brad & Kristi Pfau, 1125 Newark-Granville Road – Kitchen/Sunroom Addition

Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant is requesting approval to construct a kitchen/sunroom addition. The applicant is proposing to construct the one-story addition at the rear of the house. The kitchen/sunroom would be an additional 522 square feet; the old kitchen would become a “Butler’s Pantry;” the existing air conditioner would be relocated from the rear of the house to the east side of the house. Variances are necessary for encroachment into both side yard setbacks, because the applicant cannot meet the 50’ requirement on either side. The applicant briefly discussed the history of the house and the lot, telling how this house ended up on such a peculiar lot. Mr. Burriss asked if the landscaping is such that the air conditioner would be screened in its new location and was told yes, but if the existing landscaping does not adequately screen the unit, the applicant would plant additional landscaping to screen it. Mr. Parris said he is assuming that on the windows the same light pattern from the existing windows would be carried through. Mr. Noblick (Jerry McClain Company) said the proportions would be the same, but on the house you have a little bit of everything in regard to light patterns.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-033 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE VARIANCES FOR BOTH SIDE YARD SETBACKS BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: 

Clifton Crais, 234 North Pearl Street – Discuss Proposed Garage

Mr. Crais opened with the comment that since he was so successful last year in obtaining approval for the reconstruction project on the rear of his house; he thought he would come in and pick the Commission’s collective brain on a garage. In addition to a car, Mr. Crais would like a place to store the children’s bikes, the lawn-mower and garbage cans. Mr. Crais said that basically, we would like to build a “garage and a half,” and it would be a tall garage to provide an attic above. Mr. Crais noted that over the last nine months he has been researching garages in the Village and has selected the one at 436 North Granger Street to emulate. In the process of reconstructing the rear portion of the house, Mr. Crais kept a lot of the antique windows, so the idea would be to use them in the new garage. One of Mr. Crais’ big issues is where to locate the garage. An aerial photo he had (circa. 1936) shows his property with vehicle tracks pointing to the southeast corner of the lot, and this is where they would like to build the garage. Mr. Burriss asked where the telephone pole was in relation to the proposed driveway and was told to the west of it. Mr. Crais was certain the spacing between the drive and the pole would be adequate for the turning radius. This lead to the discussion of another detail, Mr. Crais said they would install brick treads leading to the garage. Mr. Burriss raised the issue of the orientation of the roof gable; noting that in the picture of the garage Mr. Crais likes and the drawing of the proposed garage the gables are different. Mr. Crais stated that when he submitted drawings to Mr. Dorman, he said the roof should be oriented the opposite of the way it is shown in the drawing, with the peak side facing the street rather than the roof side, and Mr. Burriss agreed. Mr. Burriss asked if the board and batten siding shown on the Granger Street garage would be used on this garage. Mr. Crais said no, that they would reproduce the siding and possibly the moldings of the house. Mr. Burriss and the Commission agreed that the board and batten siding is more typical of outbuildings from that period, and in addition is less expensive than the horizontal siding. Mr. Main asked how the proposed location of the garage relates to neighboring structures and Mr. Crais described the location of the neighbor’s outbuilding. Mr. Crais said the new garage would be about 3’ from the south side property line to allow room to maintain the structure. Mr. Burriss asked what changes would be made to the existing fence and would the hole in the middle of the fence on the north side be filled in. Mr. Crais suggested there would be a gate across the new drive, and the hole in the existing fence is the result of removing a portion of the fence for the house reconstruction project.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACTS FOR ITEMS A AND B UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND A AND B 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 APRIL 25, 2003. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:15 p.m. Next Meetings: May 5 and May 28 (Wed)

Respectfully submitted, Seth Dorman (Village Planner) 

Planning Minutes 4/14/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION April 14, 2003 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Tim Riffle Members Absent: None. Citizens Present: Amanda Warner, Dan Rogers & Barbara Franks, Flo Hoffman, Amy Shock, Fred Wolf, Greg Ream, Alexander Mouton Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of March 10, 2003: Page 3, Change “Mr. Lucier” to Ms. Lucier. Line 3, change “typical house”: to barn style house Page 2, second line up, change to: Mr. Dorman said if it works out well for Ms. Hammond, it will be a permanent solution. We did not put a limit on it.

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

New Business: 

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street - Privacy Fence Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant wishes to (1) install a 6’ privacy fence in 12’ sections with 6x6 posts and copper caps. The pickets might be topped with spheres or arrows. In addition, (2) eventually, he wants to install a 4’x8’ spa located on west side of property, painted black inside, with stepping stones around. It would need to be covered to prevent uncontrolled access. It would be 3’ from property line, but because the spa is below grade and not more than 36” above grade, it is not held to the setback lines. Mr. Rogers added that he wants to install the pickets a little closer. He will set the fence between the trees and will plant flowering bushes next to the fence. What he likes about this fence is that both sides look like the finished side of the fence. Ms. Lucier asked how this fits with the landscaping agreements that were signed during the BZBA process to approve the variances for the garage, and Mr. Rogers said “Beautifully.” They have completed landscaping for one side but the other neighbor has not decided on landscaping. Mr. Dorman added that the agreement with the north neighbor would include a fence. Approval of BZBA was not contingent on the landscaping agreements or a fence being installed; still, this fence fits with their requirements. Ms. Lucier said she has been very aware that the back of the garage is not finished yet, and Mr. Rogers said that project has two years yet to completion but the siding will be up soon. She would like to see the garage completed before we approve anymore projects, and Mr. Salvage said the PC doesn’t have the authority to hold up additional projects. Ms. Lucier asked about the spa, and Mr. Rogers said the spa will be located so that it’s OK for a specific location. If the law changes on height, he would be too far out. He wants to complete the barn siding and won’t get to the spa for awhile. Mr. Rogers said the spa is to be recessed into the ground, with grass and sandstone around it. He will probably put in bushes sometime in the future. Mr. Burriss hopes for a look of consistency from the front. Mr. Burriss asked about where the end fencepost was to be and if it had a positive relationship to the house, and thought an appropriate motion would be for the landscaping to follow the lines of the house. Mr. Rogers said the termination spots are evenly spaced sections between the trees. He thought it would be more important to have evenly spaced posts. From the look of the house, Ms. Lucier thinks it would look very symmetrical with the parallel lines. Mr. Rogers stated that this is a very high quality fence and looks finished on both sides, although the more finished side will face the neighbor. It will match the trim of the house. Mr. Salvage asked about the tops of the picket and was told they would be either pointed or round. Mr. Salvage wants the Village Planner to review the detailed drawings when they are done. He does not think we have enough information before us to finalize the spa, and Mr. Rogers said it’s not a priority item.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-015 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THE PROPOSED FENCE WILL BE PAINTED A COLOR TO MATCH THE TRIM ON THE HOUSE; (2) THE PROPOSED FENCE WILL BE A 6’ FENCE WITH 2” X 2” PICKETS, THE TOPS OF WHICH ARE TO BE DETERMINED; (3) THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT FINAL DETAILS OF THE PICKET SPACING, PICKET TOPS, AND THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE FENCE SECTIONS TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION; AND (4) THE SPA WILL BE CONSIDERED AT A LATER TIME. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Rogers hopes to complete the fence by June.

Mound-Builders Real Estate, 130 East Broadway – Sidewalk Sign

 Since no one was present to answer questions, members decided to wait until the end of the meeting. Ms. Lucier had noted a computer in the window, showing real estate available and wondered whether that constituted a sign, possibly internally lit. Mr. Dorman will investigate this with the law director. With applicant still absent by the end of the meeting, Mr. Salvage said we will table this and consider it at the next meeting if the applicant agrees. Otherwise, we will reject it and the applicant will have to resubmit it.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #03-016 TO CONSIDER AT THE NEXT MEETING, IF THE APPLICANT AGREES, OTHERWISE THE APPLICATION IS REJECTED BECAUSE OF AN INADEQUATE DESCRIPTION OF DETAIL ON THE GRAPHICS. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

FD Wolf Associates, 134 East Broadway – Café umbrella signs

 Mr. Dorman stated that V.C. has passed a resolution on sidewalk cafes and now all outdoor cafés with umbrellas or furniture that advertise products, needs to secure a sign permit. Mr. Wolf will use the same umbrellas as he has used in the last few years. He needs variances for total number of canopy signs and for individual signs. Mr. Wolf said the Velvet Ice Cream lettering is on both sides of each umbrella. Victoria’s has always adhered to the rules, whereas other cafes have not. The style does not detract from anything on Broadway, and Victoria’s serves as the principal vendor for a Licking County company. Umbrellas did not need approval until this year; in the past a letter was written. Mr. Main said Village Council {V.C.} had a series of resolutions for other similar types of cafes. It was done so that it would coincide with the existing code because there were questions about the outside seating positions. Basically, what V.C. is trying to do is to have these types of things be reviewed by GPC to be sure they are appropriate for the area. Mr. Salvage said once you take the umbrellas in for the wintertime and the rules change, he is not sure what GPC has to do to make it OK. Variances are needed. He is not sure we can vary resolutions. He was not sure that these are canopy signs attached to an awning or a structure over an outdoor area. Are they inappropriate? Mr. Main thought they looked great. Ms. Lucier said then can anyone with maximum number of signs have advertising on an umbrella? She was concerned about precedent-setting. She thought these should be treated as signs. Mr. Dorman said the coffee shop had Coca- Cola umbrellas. New rules said they should not have advertising. Mr. Wolf said he adhered to the rules. Mr. Salvage said in Europe everyone has umbrellas with signs; it’s a look we are trying to acquire. Mr. Wolf said it’s rare that you get the high quality umbrella that we get from Velvet. Velvet promptly replaces worn umbrellas or repairs damaged ones. Mr. Parris thought we needed to be in agreement whether something is attractive or not. The resolution says these are temporary canopy signs. Mr. Dorman said we allow one canopy per business, and Mr. Salvage said this is for a variance. Mr. Parris noted it was good that the resolution gets reviewed every year. Any changes come before us so they are subject to review every year as to how their café looks. It’s up to us to come to some agreement regarding how they look. Mr. Salvage noted it is clear that the resolution authorizes the umbrellas, but he is not sure what it means by No. K, “Outside furnishings are not permitted to advertise commercial messages without sign review and approval by GPC.” Are we approving the Velvet part or the quality of the appearance? Mr. Parris wondered if the resolution is asking us to approve this sign or to measure it against the sign code. Mr. Dorman said if you don’t measure it against the sign code, what are you looking at? Mr. Parris said Item J. includes everything outdoors. Ms. Lucier thought we need an answer from the Law Director. It might make people more comfortable, thought Mr. Burriss, if one panel had a logo and the other said “Velvet” to cut down on the wordage. That would help us come closer to the sign code. Mr. Parris asked whether a drawing was submitted to V.C. with this request, and Mr. Main said No, it’s a housekeeping resolution. Mr. Parris has no problem with the variance, no problem with the umbrellas, but he does not know how this is to be treated under the sign code. Mr. Salvage thought it should be considered under the temporary signs section, and that does not limit the number of temporary signs. Mr. Burriss cautioned that we should be careful to be clear in stating that the graphics and the look meet with our approval so if anyone else comes to us and we don’t like the look of it, we could turn it down because we don’t like the graphics. He would be comfortable going ahead and approving this as we have discussed it this evening knowing that we will revisit is next year. He would be happy to table this and not ask Mr. Wolf to take down umbrellas until V.C. gives clarification. Mr. Wolf would like to put them out tomorrow. It was agreed to get clarification from V.C. if they want us to (1) review sign graphics or (2) have a full-fledged review under the sign code. Mr. Wolf is willing to table as long as he can open up tomorrow.

 MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #03-017 PENDING CLARIFICATION FROM VILLAGE COUNCIL, WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE APPLICANT. MR. WOLF WILL IS ALLOWED TO USE THE UMBRELLAS IN THE INTERIM. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Dorman will notify Mr. Wolf when he has a response from the Village Council.

Coldwell Banker King Thompson, 125 East Broadway – Sidewalk sign

 Mr. Dorman said the white, blue, and black plastic sidewalk sign is 7.65 square feet and will be out only out during business hours. He pointed out the sign in the window and on the valance of the canopy. Jerri Furniss showed the actual sign and said business hours are nine to five. It would be good if we could put out a sign so people know we are open. MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-021 WITH THE CLARIFICATION THAT THE SIGN IS THREE COLORS – BLUE, BLACK AND WHITE. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR. BURRISS VOTED NO.)

Taylor’s Drug Store, 200 East Broadway – Internally Illuminated Window Signs

 Mr. Dorman introduced the signs proposed: (1) Hallmark sign on westernmost window on Broadway, 4.5 square feet, internally lit, and (2) Family Pharmacy sign on Prospect side, 5.6 square feet, internally lit. Family Pharmacy is the wholesaling company for Taylor Drug’s generic products. Variances are needed for (1) internal illumination and (2) maximum number of signs per store front. Greg Ream said he has no control over what the companies give us for signs. He would not have chosen them, but they are required if he is to sell Hallmark cards. The signs are on all the time and hang from and are plugged into the ceiling. Mr. Main asked whether they could be put on timers, and Mr. Ream said maybe. Mr. Burriss asked whether they must be internally lit, for we have consistently denied them. Mr. Ream said people like to learn that we sell Hallmark cards and he would not consider unlit signs. Under the current regulations, Ms. Lucier can see nothing that would convince her to approve internally lit signs. Mr. Ream said, “If I leave the sign up, you cite me; if I take it down, Hallmark cites me.” It’s an important part of his business. GPC is tough on businesses and he feels each case should be evaluated on a more generic plan. Since he is on a corner lot, he feels he is still under the maximum for number of signs. Mr. Dorman said the sign package was approved under the old plan. Mr. Parris is not crazy about internally lit signs, but he understands that if you offer certain services from a national brand, you are required to give them a certain amount of square feet on a sign package. He would be agreeable to having timers, but we need to agree that these signs are not detrimental. Mr. Riffle asked whether they could be moved a little higher, since they would be at eye level and was told that they are as high up as they can be. He wondered if the contract said the signs must be in the front windows. Mr. Ream said that anywhere else would not please the companies, but he fears that people will not like the sign and if people don’t like it, he’s in trouble. Mr. Salvage suggested putting the signs up for awhile to see whether people complain; Ms. Lucier is not in favor of that. Mr. Burriss cannot approve internally illuminated signs. We have worked hard over the years to promote a sign package historically appropriate and consistent and these do not fall within that. Greg Ream spent a lot of time and money to design this building and it is handsome. There was a lot of thought given to the original sign package, but this proposal does not enhance historical purism and would set a precedent. 

Mr. Salvage asked if the store does or would exceed the allowed square footage for total sign area. Mr. Dorman said no. Mr. Salvage stated that hew has no problem with the number of signs as long as the total allowed square footage is not exceeded. Mr. Burriss asked whether the companies offered a choice of signs and was told No. Mr. Parris’s suggestion was to paint the information on the window instead of having the signs (an idea Ms. Lucier liked) and was told that would not work. Mr. Salvage asked whether they could be spotlighted and Mr. Ream said no because that wouldn’t do much good and they are sealed. Mr. Salvage has no problem with the number of signs and thinks the Family Pharmacy sign could be unlit. The Hallmark sign does not show up if unlit. Mr. Ream then suggested hanging the signs on the inside window in the vestibule. Both companies require internal illumination. The hardest part of his job is keeping the vendors happy. Mr. Parris opened the discussion re criteria for number of signs by saying they have a unique building, not like any other. Mr. Parris continued by grouping all five criteria together since they all would have similar applications:

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. 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. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 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. . 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. 

With the scale of the business, it’s hard to find another like it. Smaller buildings with multiple tenants have a lot of signs, and Mr. Parris did not think we would be giving special privilege for number of signs. He believes applicant is well within his rights.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNS PER STOREFRONT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Likewise, Mr. Parris used the same criteria to consider the internally lit variance: 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. Again, we have a large building and these signs are only 10.1 square feet, out of a possible total of 300 square feet, so in proportion to the building the internally illuminated area would be very small. 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. Unless I am mistaken, we have approved internally illuminated sign for the Certified station. Others said this was under the old code. 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. Considering the scale of the business and size of the site in relation to the amount of store front, he does not think any other business has anywhere near this much store front. 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. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNS. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR. BURRISS AND MS. LUCIER VOTED NO).

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-023 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNS WILL NOT BE ILLUMINATED FROM THE HOURS OF 10 P.M. TO 6 A.M., AND THAT THEY WILL BE PLACED AS HIGH IN THE WINDOW AS POSSIBLE. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION PASSED BY MAJORITY (MR. BURRISS AND MS. LUCIER VOTING NO).

Amanda Warner, 204 South Main Street – Change of Use

 The applicant wants to change the use on the second floor from residential to commercial for a tutor and learning center. Most of the clients would be dropped off. Ms. Warner added that she is not applying for a sign at the present time.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-024. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Historical Society, Various Locations – Temporary Signs Speaking for the Historical Society, Flo Hoffman is requesting advertising signs at various locations for local performances of “Voices,” celebrating Ohio’s Bicentennial. It will be acted by local actors and sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Ohio Humanities Council, as well as Granville’s Bicentennial Commission. The signs will be up for one week prior to June 6. The signage includes (1) banner over Broadway; (2) sandwich boards on both sides of Broadway, near IGA, and Cherry Street light; and (3) directional signs at Mulberry/Broadway and Cherry/Broadway.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-025, AND TO ALLOW THE VILLAGE PLANNERTO APPROVE THE SIGN GRAPHICS. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Amy Shock, 120 East Broadway – Canopy & Window Signs

 Mr. Dorman said the new tenant in the old Cunard’s space wishes (1) a canopy using Cunard’s old canopy with her logo added to the valance, and (2) window signs at the bottom of both bay windows.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-026 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Alexander & Jackie Mouton, 339 West Elm Street – Picket & Privacy Fences

 The applicants are requesting a 42” picket fence along the top of the hill on the east, continuing to the south end of the house, for the children’s safety. They also wish to install a 60”-72” privacy fence starting alongside the neighbor’s fence on the east and around south side to top of hill to enclose back yard Mr. Mouton said the 42” fence will be white and the privacy fence will be weathered with the nice side outside. A garden outside with flowering plants will be planted inside the fencing. Mr. Burriss warned him of drainage problems, and the applicant is aware of them and they would not interfere with the fencing. Mr. Salvage said we have tried to discourage weathered fencing because it does not weather attractively in our climate. Mr. Parris added that unless the fence is made out of cedar which has had a bleaching agent, it will not get a nice natural gray. You may want to consider putting a clear coat of something on it because the bottom third will turn black. Mr. Mouton said he would agree to that. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-027 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE COLOR OF THE PICKET FENCE WILL BE WHITE; AND (2) THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THE SELECTED FINISH FOR THE PRIVACY FENCE TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR FINAL APPROVAL. MR BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,D,E,F,G,H AND I 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 APRIL 11, 2003. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 10:00 p.m. Next Meetings: April 28 and May 5

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 3/10/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION March 10, 2003 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak. Citizens Present: Steven Stein, Brian Koker, Robert Kennedy, Thomas Lawyer, Dave Rutledge, Barbara Hammond Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None Minutes of February 24, 2003: Correct spelling of Mr. Burriss’ name on Page 2, halfway down. MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Granville Lumber Company, 401 South Main Street – Addition and Exterior Remodeling

 Mr. Dorman said the applicants wish to add 268 square feet to the present office space and to replace all the windows on the primary building. Inside remodeling will make the sales area larger and relocate the restrooms. The warehouse building will receive new siding and windows; in addition he noted that the plans show the doors on the south side of this building to be removed. Mr. Lawyer said the purpose is to dress up and clean up the building. The little dock on the west will be changed to provide more show room and counter space. The wall will be moved out 7’. They will retain the dock and the main entrance. There will be a covered porch on south side, and pushed out 5’. GPC members had no problems with the project, which will enlarge and enhance the facility.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-011. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

B. Hammond Interiors, 123 East Broadway – Storage Barn

Mr. Dorman said in the rear the applicant wants a 10’x20’ wooden storage barn to be used for light furniture and accessories. A variance will be needed for the side yard setback. Barbara Hammond added that they have adequate parking space. She is hoping to make the shed permanent. The building is pre-built and sits on skids. It will be painted and have a double door. Her desire is to rent it. They now have off-site storage. Their back room is so small that they need more room. In answer to a question by Mr. Riffle about security, Ms. Hammond said she has lighting in back of the store and feels that having the Police Department two doors away acts as a deterrent to crime. She will put some mesh wiring over the windows, and the double doors will be padlocked. Mr. Burriss asked about location of the dumpster and the fact that the building cannot be pushed against the bank building. He fears that area might be a collector of trash, but she does not want to have trash back there either. Big O is careful to pick up dropped trash. Mr. Burriss would not encourage this barn for a long-term solution. Mr. Riffle asked about its color and was told it will probably be white. Because of the improvements B. Hammond has made to the interior, the landlord will replace some fascia and potholes and resurface parking area. If he adds window boxes, Ms. Hammond will add the flowers. Mr. Burriss asked if the end wall will be sided, and she said yes. The company provides shelving and they will add some more. Mr. Salvage suggested that when the final color is selected, he would like to see that approved by the Village Planner.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-012, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: (1) THAT THE APPLICANT CONSULTS WITH THE VILLAGE PLANNER WHEN THE FINAL COLOR OF THE STRUCTURE IS DETERMINED. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Welsh Hills School – Addition

 Steven Stein said tonight the architects wish to update GPC on progress. He showed the requested site plan showing neighboring buildings on a drawing and a model of the school, existing and planned. The model is primarily for fund-raising, but they were concerned about the height of the building and wanted to see how it will look. The great room will block the majority of the building. A landscape plan, approved by Tree and Landscape Commission, was also presented The original plan was to have brick pavers with grass, but they decided to forego grass because of irrigation concerns. Engineers have no problem with drainage. They hope to submit the application by the end of April and will show more details with the entire lot on a drawing of the whole site. Mr. Parris asked about the wood-belt buffer and Mr. Stein said they do not own the entire buffer of trees. Mr. Parris thought if things change in other properties it might affect the view of the school from the road, but Mr. Stein said they don’t want to block the horizon, and the landscaping plan shows their intention and will add trees as necessary. Ms. Lucier noted that when we talked before, people liked the idea of the barn and wondered whether that was still an option. Mr. Stein said this would be a barn style house, probably board and batten, and proportional to the school building. They considered silos but found they would be too costly. Mr. Stein said they would add cupolas and that really sets off the building more like a barn. In the wintertime it will be visible from Rt. 16, but they will be adding trees. Mr. Burriss asked about lighting and was told they don’t really want to put a sea of lighting but prefer more minimum bollard level lights for security, but on special occasions the lot will be more heavily lit. Mr. Parris asked him to match the lights in front. Mr. Burriss asked about trash and learned there is a dumpster there now. Mr. Burriss would like to see screening of the dumpster and air conditioning units The architects are looking at dimensional shingle roofing material, or slate roof, asphalt. The lower roofs, said Mr. Burriss, can be standing seam metal, and Mr. Stein said currently everything is standing seam. There will be a more sloping roof over the porch. Mr. Stein noted in passing that the school added a greenhouse. He said they want to break ground in the fall. He will bring in a site plan with the application and plan screening of the dumpster.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF MARCH 6, 2003.

Adjournment: 8:20 p.m. Next Meetings: NO MEETING ON MARCH 24. Next meeting is April 14.

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 2/24/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2003 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair); Tim Riffle was welcomed as the new representative from the School Board Members Absent: Barb Lucier Citizens Present: David Meleca, Thomas Morano, Father Enke Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None

Election of Officers: MR. BURRISS NOMINATED RICHARD SALVAGE AS CHAIR AND MARK PARRIS AS CO-CHAIR. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Minutes of February 10, 2003: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Sessions: 

St. Edward’s Catholic Church, 785 Newark-Granville Road – Sanctuary Addition and Site Access Modification David Meleca, Architect, described the plans to build a new sanctuary and: (1) Relocate access road and create a loop road around the church; (2) move existing rectory; (3) demolish two homes on church property; (4) turn existing church into gathering space and add amenities to it; (5) add parking spaces to accommodate 800 cars. In the future they would like to add an outdoor arcade if funds allow. Mr. Meleca described in more detail the plans and materials and said the footprint will be small. They will be adding porches to the existing church. They will be encroaching a little bit into the 100’ setback for TCOD and this would require a variance. However, they need to site the addition so that the central beams will line up. Other houses on the street are closer than 100’ back. A second variance is required for height; they plan a 57’ peak, whereas the maximum is 30’ in this zoning district. In the Institutional district the maximum height is determined by GPC and the fire chief. The addition will be below grade of road. Lot coverage needs to be examined more carefully. Mr. Salvage asked about their timetable, and Mr. Meleca said they are working hard on the architectural and are moving along with fund-raising. Under SRD, these variances must go to BZBA. GPC can only approve variances for signs and variances in the TCOD. Mr. Salvage asked if they considered rezoning to Institutional, and Mr. Parris said that, considering the different variances required, Institutional zoning would allow ordinances more appropriate for what they have in mind. Mr. Dorman said this would require a hearing at Village Council. The whole process could take two or three months. Looking at Paragraph One above, (1) members thought relocation of access road would be no problem. In fact, it would simplify the traffic flow. (2) Moving the rectory (3) and demolishing the houses would be no problem. Joe Hickman has to approve demolitions. (4) More details are required, showing location of nearby houses, signs and lighting. (5) SRD does not mention parking requirements in the code. The procedure for rezoning: (1) Check with Law Director to ensure this is not spot zoning; (2) File an application for rezoning, probably for March 24; (3) Set Village Council hearing for April 2; (4) public hearing likely on April 16; (5) a month after approval, rezoning goes into effect. GPC could meanwhile vote pending subsequent rezoning. Mr. Parris asked whether neighbors have been consulted, and Mr. Meleca said yes. Their only reservation would be for commercial rezoning. One neighbor asked about the split-rail-fence issue, and Mr. Meleca told him they have not discussed this yet. Neighbors don’t want parking in front of the church. Mr. Burriss brought up some architectural concerns, congratulating them on their excellent design. He asked about any marking of the crossing. There is a lantern on the existing church and he would like to see some sort of demarcation of the cross or cupola on the larger building too. It is missing its finial. Other churches have them. The cross is the most celebrated thought. What you are proposing is leading in a new direction. What the Catholic Church needs is “continuity of language of relationship structures.” Some elements here remind him of the capital building at Williamsburg, i.e., lanterns. Mr. Meleca said they looked at small country churches with shutters and large windows and the committee liked the rural character. He said they wanted a cupola but it would need support and it changed everything to give such support Mr. Riffle liked to see a church going back to classical design. Mr. Parris wished them luck on their $4 million campaign.

Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan

 Mr. Main promised Village Council he would push this along. V.C. wants to select a committee to have more discussion and take GPC input into account. Then there would be a conference committee of Township and Village. Mr. Parris thought the biggest burdens are on the Township and the school district; therefore it would be appropriate to have our School Board member be on board. Mr. Riffle was agreeable to this suggestion. GPC members will e-mail Mr. Riffle their concerns with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Main said V.C.’s big concern was attracting businesses and to create an atmosphere where businesses can be successful. Several sections in the Plan seemed to be a bit anti-commercial. Commercial is essential to relieve the burdens on the homeowner. Mr. Salvage noted that many developers are not looking at Granville, since they are not willing to fight. Support systems are crucial for businesses and residences, and Mr. Riffle mentioned Easton and the once-successful Continent. The hamlet concept invites mixed uses. Please send your concerns to Mr. Riffle.

Other Comments: Mr. Dorman showed a picture of the neon sign proposed by the new frozen custard shop on North Prospect. Members didn’t object to the neon, but they thought the name Whit’s could be improved or removed. A neon sign must be ‘artful.’ We need to look at his total sign package.

Adjournment: 8:50 p.m. Next Meetings: March 10 and March 24 Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 2/10/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION February 10, 2003 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: None Citizens Present: Bruce Westall, Laura Andujar Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak. Election of Officers was postponed until the School Board member is selected.

Minutes of January 27, 2002: MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business: 

Reader’s Garden, 143 East Broadway – Sidewalk Sign Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants would like approval for a sidewalk sign, 8.48 square feet, white background with black lettering and red and green design, with space for ads on the blackboard and space for hand- lettered ads on bottom half (blue on the displayed board). The sign was used in their previous location on Elm Street. Variances are needed for maximum number of colors and maximum size. The sign must be taken inside after business hours. Bruce Westall stated that they have to reapply, but he was told Reader’s Garden never got approval for the former location. Since the sign is too big, he thought that building a new sign would be easier than sawing off the side of this one. The present ground sign is only three colors. The Law Director wanted to give some thought as to whether white was a color, and Mr. Salvage suggested tabling the application. Mr. Burriss would be more comfortable with allowing this to be temporarily used and using the new sign with definite location determined. Mr. Westall placed this sign in a spot consistent with distances of other signs on the sidewalk. He doesn’t want to return here and will do what we request. Mr. Burriss noted that in the past the percentage of copy that was consistent and the percentage that was changeable were limited. Mr. Dorman does not think it appropriate for any sidewalk signs to have posters added to them. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-006 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE SIGN WILL BE PER THE CODE IN SIZE AND THE NUMBER OF ALLOWED COLORS WITHIN (60) DAYS. THE APPLICANT CAN CHECK WITH THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR FINAL APPROVAL ON THE COLORS SINCE THERE IS SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER WHITE AND BLACK ARE CONSIDERED COLORS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SIGN CODE. WE ALSO RECOMMEND TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER THAT THE READERS’ GARDEN BE ABLE TO USE THEIR EXISTING SIGN UNTIL THEIR NEW SIGN IS MADE OR UNTIL THEY HAVE THIS SIGN MODIFIED TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE; AND (2) THAT THE APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR THE SIGN WOULD BE BACK TOWARD THE BRICK AREA NEAR THE STEPS OF THE READERS’ GARDEN WITH FINAL DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Village of Granville, 141 East Broadway – Exterior Renovations

 Mr. Dorman stated that for the next phase of improvements to the Village Hall, the applicants wish to: (1) install a railing around the top of the roof for screening mechanicals and to enhance the appearance of the building; (2) install new front entry door for the hall and the Reader’s Garden; (3) replace picture windows and add light fixtures; (4) replace wrought iron railings. Mr. Burriss, who helped with the design, said they wanted the building to have more of a municipal appearance. The proposed door is more of a commercial door than a residential door but is fiberglass to look like wood for less cost and maintenance. His thought earlier was to add flagpoles and the village seal above the awning in the center. He added that Mr. Dorman should be recognized for all the time he has spent on this project. Laura Andujar, Architect, added more descriptive detail for the plan. 

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-009 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE FINAL DETAILS ARE TO BE APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER UPON CONSULTATION WITH COMMISSIONER BURRISS; AND (2) THAT THE APPLICANT CAN REPLACE OR VISUALLY ALTER THE EXISTING WINDOWS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE FRONT ENTRANCE TO ACHIEVE THE SAME LOOK. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: The scheduled work session on the Granville Comprehensive Plan will be postponed until the new Commission member is appointed. Mr. Main said Village Council will discuss this next Wednesday, and they hope to have GPC identify areas where they feel that input is necessary and those areas that the GPC does not deal with, i.e., Township issues. A special meeting may be held.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A AND B 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 JANUARY 7, 2003. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:40 p.m. Next Meetings: February 24 and March 10 Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 1/27/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION January 27, 2003 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: None Citizens Present: Mark Clapsadle, Scott Gillie, Karen and Doug Frasca Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of January 13, 2002: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business: 

Karen & Doug Frasca, 123 West Broadway – Door Replacement Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants wish to replace the deteriorated garage door with an overhead flush door with electric opener. The garage is not visible from the street.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-004 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Scott and Anne Gillie, 1075 Newark-Granville Road- Renovations

 Mr. Dorman stated that the applicants wish to (1) add a second-floor addition; (2) add a mudroom/and dinette; (3) make a new rear entry and porch; and (4) replace existing columns on the front porch to two- story columns to accommodate the second-story addition. A variance will be required for the side yard setback. Mr. Clapsadle, Architect, provided a historical background, saying the Gillies bought the house, which was built around 1928 as part of an open space district owned by the Jones family. The Gillies are the fourth owners. They came to the architect with a need for an additional bedroom and a desire to modernize and update the house. They tried to revere the existing house and maintain the architectural pattern. He led the group through the very thorough site plans and explained where the various changes will be made. There are more trees on the lot, but they have been omitted in the interest of providing a clear design. Mr. Salvage asked about the side yard setback required, and Mr. Clapsadle said about 60% of the house is already in the side yard setback. The new encroachment is minimal. Mr. Wilkenfeld stated this was the best application package we have ever received, and they are saving the general design of the house. No one will see it from the rear, but he asked whether the neighbors have been consulted about the plans. The architect said they have been and have no objections. Mr. Parris added that the applicants have done a remarkable job of keeping the character of the original house and doing what they need for added space. Mr. Salvage said the plans were very well prepared. Ms. Lucier also thinks they have done the best they could do to give added space. Personally, she feels sad about changing the scale of the house but “I guess you do too.” Mr. Burriss wanted to compliment the applicants for the package. This is one of the best examples of updating a house we have seen; it is in full sympathy with the original intent of the building and still keeps its architecture. It would be nice to keep this set of plans to act as models for other applicants. The site plan is very helpful, and the drawing showing nearby areas is also helpful. The details are good, and he wants to ask a couple of questions about the façade: (1) The horizontal wing across the front façade and (2) grid pattern and design of the French doors Mr. Clapsadle said the plan was to hide the difference between the new and the old entry. They will save the existing cornices to help disguise the old and new designs. The new door is wider than the French windows and this design will blend in well. The new door will have a removable screen. Asking about the offset in the rear of the house, Mr. Burriss was told that yes, the addition would be offset about 8’.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-003 AS PRESENTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A AND B 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 JANUARY 24, 2003. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:00 p.m. Next Meetings: February 10 and 24

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

Planning Minutes 1/13/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION January 13, 2003 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: Richard Main Citizens Present: Steve Mershon, Walt Denny, Mary & Mark Milligan, Tim Riffle, Mike Frazier, Art Chonko, Seth Patton, Chuck Peterson, Ned Roberts, Evelyne and Helmut Poelzing Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of November 13, 2002: Page 4, Change Mary Mulligan to Mary Milligan. MR. PARRIS MOVED TO ADOPT THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of December 9: Page 3, ¾ of the way down, change to ”Mr. Parris feels we should have a discussion, for how we interpret the sign code is how we would go in the future and why.” MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business: 

Steve Mershon, 110 East Elm Street - Signs Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant wishes to (1) add a panel to the existing ground sign, to be 32”x15”, double sided, and colors to be black and navy on a white background. A pair of directional signs would be placed at the bottom of the stairs and outside Mr. Mershon’s office door. All signs are consistent with other tenant signs. A variance is necessary for number of signs, but Mr. Salvage reminded the group that another tenant received a variance for the same signage as Mr. Mershon is requesting. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether the white would be as bright as that in the picture and was told the white could be softened. 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. Yes, special conditions exist. 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. Yes, a literal interpretation would deprive applicant of his rights. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. This is obvious. 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 would not confer undue privilege. 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 THE VARIANCE FOR THE SIGN PACKAGE FOR APPLICATION #02-162, BASED UPON OUR REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE UNDER THE CODE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-162 AS PRESENTED. MR.BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Evelyne Poelzing, 126 West Elm Street – Convert Barn into One-Car Garage

 Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant wishes to convert the barn into a one-car garage. The outside would remain the same except for the single door on the south side. The floor would be cemented with apron, and the existing concrete driveway would be extended with gravel. A short picket fence would be installed around the turn- around of the driveway. Ned Roberts explained the siding they have planned with a board and batten look for the front. The door would be paneled and they could stick battens on the door instead of having it flush. Mr. Parris asked if there is a way they could dress it down with laminations or something to make it look less like a door. Ms. Poelzing said the gray color will blend in with the existing color scheme. Mr. Burriss is concerned with the door’s rectangular shape with rounded tops. He recommended that the applicants study Steve Mershon’s door, which we worked hard on. It has a flat horizontal door beyond which we put a plywood door with framing and window. We need to know exactly what the final door will look like. Ned Roberts said it would be a metal door close to arches, with flush panels with batten strips. It is far back on the lot Mr. Burriss asked about a horizontal door with rough plywood on top, and Ms. Poelzing said the metal door is a matter of maintenance. The rest of the barn is wood and naturally aged, and Mr. Burris is concerned about maintaining the subtlety and character of the barn. He is not very excited about a panel. Mr. Burriss knows Ned Roberts will arrange for drainage so there will not be any rotting. The applicants have done good work on the front of the house and he would like to make this plan consistent with that. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked that since you have to take off the board and battens anyway, could you apply that to the front of the metal door, but was told that would be too heavy a door. Ms. Poelzing said the big pine tree would hide the garage Mr. Parris has no objection to the type of door if it can be colored or textured to give the same flavor as the barn. It is not very visible from the street. Mr. Salvage would not like to see a bright white door there. Ned Roberts said they could go with a flush door and texture can be put on it. 

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-159 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE FINISH OF THE FLAT STEEL GARAGE DOOR IS SUBMITTED TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND COMMISSIONER BURRISS FOR FINAL APPROVAL; AND (2) THAT THE FENCE MATERIAL IS TO BE CEDAR. 

Mark Milligan, 212 East Elm Street – Construct Two-Car Garage

 Mr. Dorman said the application is to build a 1 ½ story garage with storage at the top and (2) a pergola will tie into the existing landscaping. A variance is needed for the rear setback. Colors will match the house. Ms. Lucier asked about the window details, and Mr. Burriss is comfortable with the plan. Probably the light fixtures are to be determined, and that should be a condition. She also asked whether the tree would have to come down Mr. Milligan said the further they move the garage to the house, the more they block the neighbor’s view. The Westbrook’s tree is a buffer Mr. Burriss said it’s one of our wonderful, small Village lots, and in order for them to have any consistency with garden space, the proposed placement of it makes sense. To put the garage closer to the house would make an imposition to the house. Mr. Burriss would like Mr. Dorman to look at final plans for downspouts and for final lighting fixtures. MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-001 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT THE LIGHT FIXTURES FOR FINAL APPROVAL BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER; AND (2) THAT THE SIDING AND DOORS WILL BE WHITE TO MATCH THE BACK PORTION OF THE HOUSE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Denison University – Refigure a Portion of Burg Street

 Art Chonko showed plans to change the road to Burg Street They have changed the road behind Mitchell and they will have a new connector road between the two new buildings and the parking garage. The third component is to get around campus without leaving campus. They will remove parking and put it in the garage. The roads will be two-way roads all around campus, and they plan to start in the spring. For the main intersection at Burg and Thresher, they will push Burg toward Thresher to allow a two-way road around Shorney and maintain parking on Burg. The college is working with the Village on the parking situation, since they share the Burg parking lot. He said there may be footpaths installed. Mr. Burriss asked about a retention wall and was told it might be riprap or a wall. He thought entryway gate posts would be nice. Mr. Burriss said you also need landscaping to separate the two roads, and Mr. Chonko said they have not gotten that far yet. Mr. Burriss is also concerned about headlights shining into neighboring houses. Mr. Chonko said they will use Granville style lighting Mr. Salvage recommended guardrails and Mr. Chonko thought the guardrails might be similar to the post and beam posts at the little bridge near the golf course. Mr. Parris said the more traffic you can get off Burg Street, the safer it will be. 

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,AND C 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 JANUARY 8, 2003. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Business: Sidewalk Signs. Mr. Dorman said the maximum number of signs per storefront is 4, but what about the rear of a store? A sidewalk sign is an individual sign and should be counted in the total number of signs. Mr. Wilkenfeld thought in some places you can’t walk two abreast for all the signs, and Mr. Dorman said such signs must not be an obstruction. Mr. Burriss would like to discourage any more sidewalk signs. Regarding definition of “storefront,” Mr. Salvage said sometimes we give permission for signs in the rear and how should that be interpreted. Mr. Dorman said the logical way to interpret storefront is as a business. We are not going to be able to write a perfect code, thought Mr. Parris, and a lot of this is subject to interpretation. If we are going to change the way we interpret, we need to agree. Variances are always possible. Mr. Wilkenfeld said anything that announces a store is a sign regardless if it’s in the back. Sometimes, as in the Bakery, directional signs are necessary. Mr. Salvage thought a storefront is not a business; it is the front of a store. Nor is an alley a storefront. But Mr. Wilkenfeld said directional signs for deliveries should be approved by the Village Planner In the case of a building with multiple tenants, each tenant is a separate store front, added Mr. Parris. Mr. Dorman asked if is important to limit the total number of signs for a business and was told yes and Mr. Parris said you always nave a variance option. The code tries to balance the business as well as how we want the village to look. We need to agree on what is a variance situation and what is not. Mr. Salvage asked whether we need to establish a definition of storefront and was told yes. For a business on a corner lot, Mr. Salvage said we decided to give them additional square footage but no additional signs. To sum up: Storefront signs are at the primary entrance of the business. Informational signs, such as Visa or MasterCard, should be excluded from the maximum count. Such signs are to be determined by GPC upon application. Mr. Dorman will draft an amendment that would define informational signs. Be flexible on number of informational signs. Sidewalk signs are included in the total number of signs per business.

Adjournment: 9:10 p.m. Next Meetings: January 27 and February 10

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.