Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 12/13/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 13, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Tim Riffle, Mark Parris (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld (Vice Chair)
Members Absent:  Jack Burriss
Visitors Present:  Joe & Nancy McDonough, John Noblick, Lisa McKivergin, Jodi Schmidt, Jeff Oster, Leslie O'Neill, John Roy
Also Present:  Joe Hickman, Village Manager
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  none

Minutes of October 11, 2004.  MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of November 22, 2004:  Page 1, The paragraph starting "Mr. Mitchell:" change to "Mr. Mitchell . . . stairway, and this met with approval of all members.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED; MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
New Business:

Granville Chamber of Commerce - Santa Shed

 The chamber wishes to house Santa Claus in the Alltel Park.  Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether people could still get around it in the alley and was told Yes.  He thought maybe it could be closer to the street.   Mr. Riffle asked where the reindeer would stay, and Mr. Hickman said, "on the roof."
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Joe McDonough, 418 West Broadway - Renovations

 The Village Planner revoked the occupancy permit upon learning the applicant had made substantial changes without an application.  He had intended to replace everything as is and did not realize he needed approval, but then he went ahead and made some design changes.  Tonight he is asking for approval of changes for windows, siding and front door. 
 Mr. McDonough apologized for the misunderstanding when he made the changes.  He supports all GPC efforts and realizes maintaining architectural strength of the village is necessary.  The house was in bad shape, and had lots of different windows, and different renovations were made randomly.  The neighbors are very supportive of his efforts.  All his actions were in good faith and he did not intend to break rules.
 Mr. Parris brought up the subject of zoning districts, all of which have different regulations, and we must be sure that this SRD-B/TCOD change is compatible with the neighborhood and provides smooth transition between the village and rural areas.   Mr. McDonough presumed it was not in the AROD so did not need this approval, but the he heard later that it was in the TCOD and that Mr. Burriss was uncomfortable with the windows and doors.  All his work is of high quality, and the wood windows are the same width but they have been made shorter and bordered by 1"x4" boards.
 Mr. Parris acknowledged that it is unfortunate that neither Mr. Strayer nor Mr. Burriss is present, nor did the latter provide a letter to explain his concerns. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld thought he could put lintels over the windows.  Mr. Riffle said the windows do not fit the house and they should have been taller, but Mr. McDonough disagreed and said when they reframed them, they used the original framing.  Mr. Riffle is talking about historical window sizes.  The upper ones are as they would have been, but the lower ones would have been longer and narrower.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked whether he was given an OK to go ahead, and he said Yes, originally nothing was to be changed.  He will use new products that look old.
 Lisa McKivergin, who owns the house next door, knows the house well and feels it was the ugliest house in town, and the difference now is substantial and outstanding.  She said the interior of the house was so muddled that it could not easily be renovated.
 Mr. Mitchell said the code requires that architectural continuity and good design be promoted, and he would defer to Mr. Riffle about the architecture.  It looks fine to him and sees nothing wrong with the design.
 Mr. Parris thinks it looks better than it did, and the only criticism to the front of the house it that there could be some sort of mullion detail at least in the top sash to give it more detail and to strike the period. 
Mr. Wilkenfeld agreed with these comments.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-184 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Lisa McKivergin, 134 East Broadway - Sign

 For her yoga studio, Jody Schmidt desires a door sign to be hung under the dentist's sign.  It will have black trim and will match the dentist's sign and his sign will overlay hers. 
 Mr. Parris is concerned about setting a precedent with this situation and we need to justify what we do, since only one wall sign is permitted per business.  The maximum number of storefront signs is 4, and this would be only three.   Members discussed the location and appearance of the pair of signs. 
 Mr. Parris applied justifications:

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.  There are two tenants upstairs and we have no viable alternatives for another sign either as a projecting or free-standing sign.  The door does not lend itself to a window sign.  The front of the building does not lend itself to a projecting, and the awning would interfere with a projecting sign.
 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.  It would deprive because the other tenant has a sign and this new business has the right to identify itself.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  They do not.
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 undue privileges since others have signs, and there is no other place for this one.
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.  Placing it on the door would prevent people from bumping into it.

 Ms. McKivergin brought up the idea of a long thin sign beside the door, keeping the same fonts and colors.  Mr. Parris said a projecting sign would have to be two-sided and must stay within the 10 sq.ft. maximum, or 5' on each side.  She thought 5' would be too short but will go and design a new sign.  But first she produced an earlier stab at a design, which the members liked.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE A PROJECTING SIGN WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS:  (1) SIGN WILL BE A PROJECTING WALL SIGN ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE DOOR; (2) NO MORE THAN 10 SQ.FT; (3) USING THE SAME GRAPHICS AND COLORS AS THE ORIGINAL DRAWING; (4) MR STRAYER WILL REVIEW THE FINAL DESIGN.   MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jeff Oster, 1159 Cherry Valley Road - Sign

 Mr. Oster wishes to replace the existing sign with a new sign with new design.  Mr. Oster said there was a change in the dimensions of the original sign to increase the size, but it still fits within the code.  It will be white background with blue and burgundy lettering. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 04-186 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE SIGN WILL BE SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN THE ORIGINAL. THE CHANGES ARE LISTED ON THE DESIGN PAGE OF THE APPLICATION.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

John Noblick, 335 N. Granger Street (Kent Maynard)

 The applicant wishes to add a 1¾ story second-floor bedroom and bath above existing family room and extend both 5'6" toward rear of lot.  Nr. Noblick explained that there was a previous design change in 1900 as well as in 1890, and this one will be a different pitch but will look a lot like the original.  It will be a shed roof, and all materials will match. 

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 04-187 AS PRESENTED.   MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Elizabeth Carr, 130 East Broadway - sign

 The sidewalk sign has already been set up, and it advertises the other business for these owners.  Mr. Parris was upset at the retroactive application.  The code says there can only be one sidewalk sign per building, but Commission members were unclear about how to interpret the language and asked for clarification.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE AND WOULD LIKE A RESPONSE FROM THE VILLAGE PLANNER OR LAWYER AS TO WHETHER WE CAN ADVERTISE TWO DIFFERENT BUSINESSES ON ONE SIGN, ONE OF WHICH IS NOT IN THIS LOCATION.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, ABND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Ms. Carr may not leave the sandwich board on the sidewalk until this is resolved.  Joe Hickman will talk with her.

Work Session:   

 865 Newark-Granville Road - Fence

 Mr. Strayer said the owner was denied a variance from BZBA for a 712" tall fence on the front lot line.  She wants to talk about different designs with GPC.
 Ms. Leslie O'Neill showed pictures and said they want to take down the bushes and gate and put in a fence and stone wall 24" high.  She wants 48" because the fence sits so low.  The house sits on the hill in the TCOD, and she believes a lower fence would look silly.  Their original plans called for a chain link in 8' lengths.
 Mr. Hickman thought a retaining wall seems like a good idea and will help retain the soil. 
 Mr. Burriss had asked the applicant for stone pillars matching the house at the pedestal gate at the corner to define those entrances more clearly.  He also said he would be available to talk to anyone tomorrow.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted to see what final design plans for a 48" fence would look like, vs. 42" maximum in the code.  The BZBA would give final variance approval as a modification.
 Mr. Parris said if they made the retaining wall, could they make it higher and would that need approval, and Mr. Hickman said the retaining wall could be an administrative decision, and as long as the fence is 42" they would not need a variance.
 John Roy said the soil is washing away and they need the retaining wall.
 Mr. Parris said that since this property is a centerpiece to the village, he wants to do this right.
 Mr. Riffle thought GPC could approve it pending approval from BZBA.

 Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,C,D,E UNDER OLD BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF NOVEMBER December 10, 2004.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings: January 20 and 24
Adjournment:  9:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 11/22/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Barb Lucier, Tim Riffle
Members Absent:  Mark Parris (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld (Vice Chair)
Visitors Present:  Brett Griffith, Jack Schmidt, Ted Handel, Steve Mershon, Tommy Burkett, Millie Entrekin, Barbara Hammond, Jody Schmidt
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  none

Minutes of November 8, 2004.  MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
.Old Business:

First Baptist Church, 115 West Broadway - Storage Shed

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPRIOVED.

 Mr. Strayer said revised drawings and pictures are in packets with site plans for the concrete block shed.  It will have entry from the interior, and it will match the proposed doors.  We tabled at the last meeting because of lack of information, and what we have now is everything you asked for.
 Mr. Mitchell asked about the 15' between the storage and the outside stairway, and this was met with approval of all members, and Mr. Burriss had a question about the location of the new roof being jammed up against the window, and decided to move ahead even without clarification of the question.

MR.MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-166.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 
 
New Business:

Lisa McKivergin, 134 East Broadway - Change of Use

 The change is from a dentist office to a yoga studio over Victoria's, and the number of parking spaces requires is up to the GPC. 
Jody Schmidt, manager, explained that her studio plans to take over one-third of the upper part of the building.  The most students would be 12-15 per class, and she has about 20 classes per week, from 9 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.  The attendees are mostly Granville people walking in

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-179 FOR CHANGE OF USE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Lisa McKivergin, 134 East Broadway - Sign

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant and he were not able to prepare this for this evening and she asked to table it.

 MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Schools, 131 Granger St. - Awnings

 Mr. Strayer said the school board wants to construct blue and navy awnings at the north door and at the west door, the north door will have a half circle extending 8' and supported by two metal poles, and the west door awning will be more typical...   
 Brett Griffith, Treasurer, said the board wants to make the front entry easier to access in the rain, especially since the Granville Fellowship uses the building and the doors are heavy.  It will not project over the sidewalk.  He clarified exact location of awning in relation to the light. 
 Steve Mershon, neighbor, asked the size, and it is 96".

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-181 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session Directional signs

 Barbara Hammond informed the group Chamber of Commerce wishes to assist visitors to stores and that the 5 proposed business-location signs will be located at (1) front of this building, (2) Broadway and Main, (3) Broadway and Cherry, (3) Main and Elm, and (5) Taylor's corner.  They have not talked about the number of slots available, but members were concerned about a lot of empty space on the sign. Mr. Mitchell said other signs could fill the space, such as the Village, Fire Department, or churches. The current signs are more oriented for cars, but the proposed signs, mimicking those at Easton, would be at eye level.  Her group would not include banks and real estate offices, and they wanted to get rid of the preponderance of sidewalk signs, just allowing them at banks and real estate offices. The existing signs will stay up.  They tried to use our lampposts as sample; they won't be exact, but they will be similar. 
 Mr. Mitchell wanted to know how to tell banks and real estate office they cannot have signs, and Mr. Strayer said they could be added if everyone wants them.
 Ms. Hammond said retail has priority, and the number of signs determines the size of the joint sign.    It's a two-sided sign.
 The question remains:  Who will put up and pay for the signs?

Finding of Fact:  MR. RIFFLE  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND 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 NOVEMBER 22, 2004.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings: December 13.  December 27 meeting is cancelled.

Adjournment:  8:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 11/8/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 8, 2004
Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle.
Members Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld (Vice Chair)
Visitors Present: Tommy Burkett, Father Enke, Tom Lazelle, Tony Beckerly, Patty Urbatis, Larry Morgan, and Mr. and Mrs. Steve Keeler.
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak. 
Citizen's Comments:  No one appeared to speak. 

Minutes of October 11, 2004 - Consideration of minutes was postponed.
Minutes of October 25, 2004 - Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  The motion was unanimously approved. 

Old Business:
115 West Broadway, #04-166
VRD, AROD
Storage Addition

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to take application #04-166 off of the table.  Second by Mr. Riffle.  The motion was unanimously approved.

Mr. Strayer stated that the addition had previously been tabled until more information could be provided.  The applicant, Tommy Burkett, stated that the purpose of the addition was to provide storage and to hide the garbage dumpsters.  Mr. Burriss asked if the proposed roof would be at the same slope as the existing roof.  Mr. Burkett stated yes.  Mr. Burkett indicated that the proposed doors would be similar to barn doors.  The committee asked about the handicap entrance and Mr. Burkett stated that the entrance is a newly installed back door.  Member's of the committee displayed some concern as to how the new addition would look from the road.  Mr. Burriss asked if there was site plan.  Mr. Strayer provided a site plan he had from another project.  Members of the committee stated that it would be helpful to them to see the addition indicated to scale on the site plan.  Mr. Burriss stated that Mr. Strayer might be able to help Mr. Burkett get some digital pictures that would better depict his plans.  Mr. Burriss stated that the drawings provided by Mr. Burkett are better, but he would still like to see something more to scale.  Mr. Parris asked if the church was in a time crunch to get this done.  Mr. Burkett stated that they would like to act soon, but they are running out of time to dig for the footers.  Mr. Burkett went on to say that the main objective in doing all of this was to improve the looks of the dumpster area on that side of the church.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he doesn't think anyone on the committee has any problem with the concept.  Mr. Burriss stated that the committee does not want to hinder him, but there needs to be some clearer indications as to what the addition will look like, and will it tie everything together consistently.  Mr. Burriss stated that the addition needs to be indicated, as well as how much space is needed to open the doors.     

Mr. Burriss made motion to table application #04-166.  Seconded by Mr. Riffle.  The motion was unanimously approved.   

New Business
314 East Broadway, #04-173
VBD, AROD
Freestanding Sign

The applicant, Tony Beckerly, stated that they would like to update the current sign because they feel it is an eye sore.  Mr. Strayer stated that the sign would consist of three colors.  Mr. Parris inquired on the proposed font.  Mr. Beckerly stated that he did not provide this with the application, but he distributed a business card with the font he wished to use. He stated that this font is consistent with all of the printed material that the Granville Inn distributes.  Mr. Parris stated that the committee generally likes to see an example of the sign in its totality.  Mr. Burriss asked if the sign would be two-sided.  Mr. Beckerly stated yes.  Mr. Beckerly stated that they would like to paint the black poles holding up the sign because they are rusted.  It was stated that the black on the poles does not count as part of the three color maximum allotted for signage.  The committee had questions as to where the wording on the sign would be located.  Mr. Beckerly stated that the sign would have the following wordage centered: Granville Inn, Great Taste in the Heart of Granville, Dining, Lodging, Cocktails, Catering and Banquets.  Mr. Beckerly stated that the sign is also in need of a new wooden frame.  He stated that he did not indicate this on his application.  Mr. Burriss stated that he feels the committee doesn't have a problem with the idea of making these changes in concept.  Mr. Parris stated that the request meets all that is required in the code and it will enhance what is there now.  He stated that the committee needs to be as specific as possible on what they approve.  Mr. Parris stated that in this case the committee has enough information to move forward, as long as Mr. Beckerly provides some additional information to Mr. Strayer.  Mr. Beckerly stated that he could have the information to Mr. Strayer the following day.  The following information were to be provided on the application to Mr. Strayer: 1) frame replacement, 2) font/the precise placement and size of the lettering, 3) a true to scale representation of the sign, 4) post rehabilitation.    

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve application #04-173 with the condition that  additional information listed below is provided to Mr. Strayer: 
1) frame replacement
2) font/the precise placement and size of the lettering
3) a true to scale representation of the sign
4) post rehabilitation.    

Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call: Mitchell, Burriss, Riffle, Parris (4, 0).  The motion was unanimously approved. 


785 Newark Granville Road, #04-174
ID, TCOD
Parking Lot

Tom Lazelle stated that he was representing St. Edwards Catholic Church.  He stated that additional parking is needed, and they are proposing to place a gravel parking lot in the rear of their property.  He stated that a gravel lot is preferred, but they would be willing to asphalt it if need be.  Mr. Burriss asked how parking spaces would be indicated if a gravel lot is used.  Mr. Lazelle stated that it would be up to drivers to align themselves.  Mr. Burriss also inquired on what has been done about the drainage issue in this area.  Mr. Lazelle stated that the new plan has yet to be looked at by an engineer.  Mr. Mitchell asked if another detention base is needed if a gravel lot is used.  Mr. Parris asked if the village or county engineer would be looking at this and approving it.  Mr. Strayer stated that the village engineer would be approving the drainage, and that the application would be contingent upon his approval.  It was stated that there would not be additional lighting on the proposed parking lot because they plan to use it mostly just on Sunday mornings.  Father Enke stated that the lot is going to primarily be used for overflow.  He stated that they will likely pave the lot some time down the road.  Father Enke also stated that this request has stemmed from people parking along the road, and that this is unsafe and illegal.  Mr. Burriss asked if the 144 spaces on the lot are needed now, or could they make the lot smaller to accommodate fewer spaces.  Mr. Lazelle stated that it was cost effective to make the lot this size now.  Mr. Parris questioned the traffic flow in the parking lot, and Mr. Mitchell asked if the village engineer would also address the traffic flow.  Mr. Strayer stated no, he would only look at traffic flow on streets.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would have no problem with the approval as long as the village engineer approves it.  Other member's of the committee agreed. 

Mr. Riffle made a motion to approve application #04-174 with a gravel lot, pending the approval of the village engineer.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.  Roll Call: Riffle, Burris, Mitchell, Parris (4, 0).  The motion was unanimously approved.   

120 ½ East Broadway, #04-175
VBD, AROD
Wall Sign Modification

Mr. Strayer stated that this application had actually been approved several months back as application #04-101.  He stated that the sign was previously approved with a different color scheme.  The applicant, Patty Urbatis, stated that she is not fond of the current sign and she wasn't aware of the change because Prudential had dealt directly with the sign company.  She suggested changing the frame to white.  The committee agreed.  Mr. Parris asked if she was certain that Prudential would allow her to make this color change.  Ms. Urbatis stated yes, because the frame was not part of Prudential's sign. 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to consider a minor modification for application #04-101.  Seconded by Mr. Riffle.  The motion was unanimously approved. 

Mr. Riffle made a motion to approve application #04-175 with the condition that the frame is painted white.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Roll Call: Mitchell, Riffle, Burriss, Parris (4, 0).  The motion was unanimously approved. 

343 East Broadway, #04-179
SRD-B, AROD
Front Porch

The applicant, Larry Morgan, stated that his plans for a porch were actually approved some years back, but he had not ever made the proposed changes.  He supplied an example of the flooring he wished to use.  When asked, Mr. Morgan stated that the columns on the porch would be made out of a synthetic material with a base and a cap.  The committee discussed the building materials.  Mr. Parris asked if the changes from the original drawings were noted in the application.  Mr. Morgan stated yes and that the only change should be the rail and baluster system. 

Mr. Riffle made a motion to accept application #04-179 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Roll Call: Burriss, Mitchell, Riffle, Parris (4, 0).  The motion was unanimously approved. 

Work Session (This item was not on the agenda, but added after 'New Business')
Mr. and Mrs. Steve Keeler spoke to the committee about a garage that they would like to build.  They stated that they wished to run their ideas by the Planning Commission before submitting a formal application. 

Finding of Fact Approvals
Mr. Riffle moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Items A, 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 November 8, 2004.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  The motion was unanimously approved. 

Next meetings:
November 22, 2004 (Mr. Parris and Ms. OKeefe indicated that they will not be present.)

December 13, 2004 (The committee discussed having Manager Hickman fill in since Mr. Strayer will not be available.  The committee also discussed changing the meeting to December 20, 2004.  No final decision was made.)

December 27, 2004 (The committee discussed canceling this meeting.)

Adjournment: 9:10 pm. 


Submitted by:
Melanie Schott

Planning Minutes 10/25/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 25, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle, Carl Wilkenfeld (Vice Chair)
Members Absent
Visitors Present:  E. Carr, Bill Heim, Robert Landman
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  Bill Heim, Chair of BZBA, introduced himself and stated his concerns about zoning and its effect.  The meeting is not an open public hearing but is open to the public. It was created by Village Council and its rules are governed by the Supreme Court.  They can make decisions in private and their discussions do not have to be public, only their decisions.  They invited the Law Director to talk to them and guide them in their work.  Mr. Heim is available privately and publicly if anyone has questions.

Minutes of September 27, 2004.  Consideration of Minutes was postponed until next meeting.
 
.Old Business:

Elizabeth Carr, 130 East Broadway - Awning

 Mr. Strayer said the awning was tabled for an improved color scheme.  Since then, the applicant and Mr. Strayer have talked and  she brought in a new tan and black striped awning with a black valance.  Gold lettering on the valance will be approved in a separate application.  She is also proposing to repaint the storefront cream with black trim and pillar and a green door.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPRIOVED.

 Mr. Burriss asked for details on the scalloped edge and Ms. Carr explained how the lettering would fit within the space.

MR.MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-160.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 
 
Elizabeth Carr, 130 East Broadway - Awning Lettering

 Ms. Carr showed a draft of how she wanted the lettering to look on the previously approved awning application.  It will have gold lettering.  Of the two submitted samples, the group approved the one on the top of the page, 5.8" by 40".  Lettering will be in the same font as the window sign.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-164 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE LETTERING BE GOLD AND THAT THE FONT WILL BE AS IN THE EXAMPLE PROVIDED, TOP SAMPLE.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

First Baptist Church, 115 West Broadway - Storage Addition


 The applicant wishes to add storage on the west side of the education building with access only from the exterior.  It will be concrete block with siding on the north side to match the proposed doors. No style or drawings were submitted.

 Mr. Parris was unaware of how it would look visually from the drawings submitted.  He is uncomfortable about approving an application with such vague specifications and no elevations.  Others agreed and did not feel they should design the addition here. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PENDING FURTHER DETAILS.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND ITEM A  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 25, 2004.  MR. RIFFLE  SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:  November 8 (Betty will be absent Nov. 8) and November 26

Adjournment:  7:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 10/11/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 11, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle, Carl Wilkenfeld (Vice Chair)
Members Absent
Visitors Present: Mark Clapsadle, Mark Sween, Kim Brown, Karen Frasca, Doug Frasca, E. Carr, Lisa McKivergin
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  None
Minutes of September 27, 2004
 Clapsadle has only one D.  Page 3, under Clapsadle, Line 6, change "fishtail" to fishscale. 
 Page 3, Line 14 from bottom, change "double" to duplicate.
 Page 4, line 2, change "archeological" to architectural.
MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO ACCEPT MINUTES AS AMENDED; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

.Old Business:

Mark Clapsadle, 329 Summit Street (For Mark & Sarah. Sween) _ - Additions

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
 
Mr. Strayer said this was tabled at the last meeting for design changes.  The applicants have asked if they could have some time tonight to discuss their feelings about the design.  Mr. Sween said he understands GPC's concerns but offered no new drawings. 
 Mr. Parris thought the main concern was the view from the porch.  It takes away from the architectural integrity.  We understand the problems that the houses built in this period have in meeting today's needs, but we would like to be sympathetic to the original part of the old house.  It was the second-story piece that was the biggest concern.
 Mr. Sween said when they bought the house, they knew they would either have to move or expand the house.  The bedrooms are small, but nothing could be found in the village to meet their space needs. They wanted the design to fit in with the neighborhood.   With expansion he wanted the house to look like a unified whole but was having trouble, and Mr. Clapsadle said it was hard not to make it look tacked on. 
 Mr. Riffle stated the addition must be compatible, but this design overwhelms the original rather than being subservient to the main house.    Mr. Sween said the whole front of the house is hard to change, but they wanted it bigger. 
 Mr. Mitchell sees it as an apartment building rather than an addition to a home. It is overwhelming and massive.  The symmetry bothers him.  It makes it look monolithic.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said a lot of times GPC talks to people and suggests the addition not be as long or high; rather, try to make it deeper so the height does not overwhelm the house.  Move it a couple of feet and make it deeper to lessen the massing.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-145 AS SUBMITTED; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY DENIED BY MAJORITY (Mr. Burriss voted Aye.)

Lisa McKivergin, 124 South Main Street - sign


 Mr. Strayer said this application is to replace the existing sign with three colors. 
 Mr. Burriss added that it was internally lit.
 Ms. McKivergin said in 1992 when the sign was approved there was no information on the application about the colors.  She wanted red, white and blue, and she erected the sign.  The Village did not like it and she replaced it but kept the original in the garage.  Other multicolored signs have been erected in the Village and she hopes to reestablish her original sign.
 Mr. Parris noted the sign code has been rewritten twice since the sign was proposed.  Three colors are OK but internally lit is not OK.  Ms. McKivergin said she would get rid of the internal light. 

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE SIGN NOT BE INTERNALLY LIT.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Doug Frasca, 123 West Broadway - fence

 Mr. Strayer said the application is for a 4' wooden fence with flat pickets and posts from west side of house, along the driveway, stopping at the garage.  A gate will be installed.  The deck and garage will require additional fencing. Mrs. Frasca added that the short fencing enclosing the A.C. units will be removed and replaced with three shrubs and trellis.  It will be a pale ice blue color to match the house trim.  She asked whether they could wait until spring to start and was told Yes.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-152 WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT: (1) COLOR IS TO MATCH THE ICE BLUE TRIM OF THE HOUSE; (2) PICKETS WILL BE SQUARE-TOPPED RATHER THAN POINTED; (3) HEIGHT WILL BE 48"; (4) REMOVE FENCE AROUND A.C. AND USE NEW SECTIONS OF FENCE AND SHRUBBERY TO SCREEN A.C.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James Gabriel Brown, 127 South Main Street - driveway

 Mr. Strayer said the application is to remove the old gravel and concrete driveway and replace it with poured exposed aggregate strips with grass in-between and a brick walkway. 
 Mr. Brown added that they will have grass under the window.  They want to get rid of mixed materials and there will be a foundation bed along the house.  The pavers will be brown, a true brick color to match the terra cotta house.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH THE OLD CONCRETE.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Elizabeth Carr, 130 East Broadway - Awning

 Mr. Strayer said the window sign and change of use were approved at the last meeting.  The awning is in disrepair and they want to replace it with a black awning.  They also want the name of the store on the drop, but that would require another sign permit.  We could temporarily approve the sign or wait to see it
 Ms. Carr said the name is changed to Green Velvet from Mom and Me, and colors will match the gold front window sign.
 Mr. Burriss would like to see the lettering and colors and wondered about an all-black awning.  We did approve B. Hammond's black sign, but her store was bigger.   Black draws heat and will fade on the north side of the street.   All other awnings on that side are brightly colored. Other members agreed, and tan was suggested.    Mr. Paris said that although there is nothing against black in the code, black would not be his first choice.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested softening the black with some gold piping or stripes or other trim.  The applicant said it does not have to be black.
 Mr. Parris said we want to see the (1) awning design; (2) the color; (3) the lettering; and (4) the size.
 Ms. Carr then remarked that she wanted to paint the entire façade of the building black except the green front door.  But Mr. Parris thought it would look like a big hole.  Mr. Burriss said new buildings imitate facades like 130 East Broadway and this one should not be violated.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PER REQUEST OF APPLICANT PENDING FURTHER DESIGN WORK.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 
 
Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS A,B,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 8, 2004.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:  October 25 and November 8 (Betty will be absent Nov. 8)

Adjournment:  8:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen HullingerPaste minutes here.

Planning Minutes 9/27/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 27, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle
Members Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld (Vice Chair)
Visitors Present: Mark Clapsadle, Luke Bakus, Jerry Martin,
Tom McCullough, Sarah Green, Connie Westbrook, Miles Waggoner, Sandy Wilson, Ben Rader, Hughes, Rev. Steve Cramer, Jack Thornborough
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  None
Minutes of September 13, 2004
MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO ACCEPT MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
.Old Business:

Gerald Martin, 116 East Broadway - Renovations

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO TAKE THIS APPLICATION FROM THE TABLE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
{Mr. Burriss recused himself from this application.}
 Mr. Strayer said that at the last meeting there was some confusion as to next steps because of the enclosed stairwell and the balcony being built on village property.  On Friday the Planning and Zoning Committee talked about these issues and it was determined that the Law Director would look into an agreement for use of the space.  They gave GPC approval to go ahead with design changes. 
 Tom McCullough, of the Methodist Church, stated that they have a letter for the file regarding architectural design and parking.  They have agreed to let the public use their parking lot, but they are concerned that people from Brew's will abuse the lot.  Children are often present for church activities, even at night, and are outside playing.  They are also afraid that excess noise will disturb their activities.
 Miles Waggoner from the church said that several years ago when they were going through their expansion, they attempted to provide access at various levels and for handicapped parking.  Several ideas incorporated stairwells and ramps, but GPC sent them back because of potential problems on Linden maintaining the public area.  They then drew up a better plan with staircase inside, and he encouraged Brew's to do the same in the best interests of the village.  Mr. Parris responded that GPC sent them to the drawing board because they were proposing further encroachment into the alley. 
 Ben Rader, who owns property east of the building, wondered whether Mr. Burriss' designs were considered.  Mr. Parris said Mr. Burriss has recused himself from this application.  We were going to address this in the final drawings about screening plans.  We have not yet looked at the design plans.  Mr. Rader is concerned about screening the second floor.
 Mr. Strayer said the Law Director will set up a lease arrangement between the applicant and the village.  At the next V.C. meeting there will be an ordinance and at the following meeting, a public hearing. He was told to tell GPC to go ahead with design detail.  They talked about trash, etc., but in no detail about how to structure an approval.  It will be as an enforcement issue rather than a design issue.
 Steve Kramer, Minister, was concerned about trash in the alley.  What will happen if the building is to be a restaurant? Sandy Wilson explained that the dumpster will be in an 8' high wooden structure and there will be water available for hosing down the alley.  They have a grease collection tank behind the building to suck grease out of a tank in the basement. 
 Regarding screening the front porch, Mr. Martin said he could look into it but it would be ugly.  And screening the second floor porch would be difficult.  People lean on screens, and it will take away from the wrought iron design. 
 Mr. Mitchell thought Ben Rader is asking for a visual barrier rather than an insert barrier.  It seems like a good idea but it will not be very pretty.  Mr. Rader said he is not talking about that.  A screen would be used to prevent people from throwing out beer bottles, etc., especially on the east.  Mr. Riffle thought something should be done; whatever you do will show, but you can come up with something that will not stand out as bad, and it should address citizens' concerns.    A lattice would impede vision and would be hard to maintain. 
 Mr. Martin said the first floor will remain as it is now.  The building is a little larger than the current Brew's.  He said he would be willing to put a screen up on the second floor.
 Mr. Wilson said they have tried to simplify the columns, and the lentils will remain as they are.   The stairwell is a fire escape, not an access.  They will have an elevator. 
 Mr. Strayer noted that alcohol sales would be part of the agreement, so if the ordinance does get passed, alcohol would be permitted on the balcony.
 Mr. Parris said GPC had reviewed the initial plans a couple of months ago and the old drive-through will be removed. The plan for the stairwell, even though enclosed, takes up less space than what exists there today. 

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-084 WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT (1) THE EXISTING BASE AND WINDOWS WILL STAY ON FIRST FLOOR; (2) EXISTING LENTILS STAY ON SECOND FLOOR; (3) BRACKETS WILL MOVE IN; (4) DUMPSTER IN BACK; (5) ELIMINATION OF EXTERIOR GREASE TANK; (6) SCREENING ON SECOND FLOOR EAST; (7) WINDOW DESIGN WILL BE UP TO THE APPLICANT.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Gerald Martin, 116 East Broadway - Change of Ude

Mr. Strayer said the change of use will go from financial institution to food and drugs.  The code requires a restaurant of this size to provide 126 spaces and would require a variance.  The applicant has stated that there are 8 spaces behind the building, 5 in the alley, and 20-22 spaces in front of the building.  The Methodist Church is open for parking except Sunday mornings. 
Mr. Parris asked about site clean-up, asking whether that's part of a criminal code, and Mr. Strayer said it's an enforcement issue, but the neighbors would like us to note it.  The agreement between the village and Brew's does not tie in with the change of use; it only deals with property lines.   Sale of liquor would be in the document. 
Mr. Martin has 55 seats now and anticipates 95 or more, and the first floor is the same.  He has never had complaints about lack of parking spaces. 
Mr. Parris asked about activities taking place with the business change.  He assumes people are responsible for their own behavior and throw their trash in the proper bins. 
Steve Kramer said they have had trouble with trash in the alley before: bottles, cigarette butts, etc., and noise.   
Mr. Waggoner tried to find a record of an agreement between the church and the village for use of the alley, and the agreement was that the village would do the maintenance and the church would permit use as a public parking lot.  Mr. Parris wondered whether the church could authorize restrictions on public parking, and Mr. Strayer said he would ask Joe Hickman about that. 
Ben Rader wishes Jerry Martin well but is concerned about (1) the upstairs porch.  What will happen when he moves out?  (2) Employees taking a break in the back.  Mr. Martin said there will be a break room inside.
Mr. Parris noted a lot of concerns expressed here tonight are about being a good neighbor, and he is confident the applicant will talk to neighbors to be sure things get policed.  If concerns arise, people should talk to Mr. Martin.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 04-142 FOR CHANGE OF USE FROM A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TO A RESTAURANT BUILDING.  BZBA WILL HEAR THE VARIANCE FOR PARKING.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Tim Hughes, 142 East Broadway l- Awning

 Mr. Strayer explained that the scarlet, gray, and white awning is for a new real estate office and meets all criteria.  It will replace the current blue and white awning and have no lettering

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 04-143 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mark Clapsadle, 329 Summit Street (For Mark & Sarah. Sween) _ - Demolition

 The garage is deteriorating and must be torn down and a new garage built.

MR. BURRIS MOVED TO RECOMMEND A DEMOLITION PERMIT.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mark Clapsadle, 329 Summit Street (For Mark & Sarah. Sween) _ - Additions

 Mr. Strayer explained that a new garage will be built on the site where the abovementioned demolition will take place.  It will be used as a retreat and have no plumbing. 
 Mr. Parris's concerns are that the house with shutters be architecturally distinct.  It's a beautiful home and it looks like you are stripping some elements from it.  Mr. Clapsadle said every detail of the existing house will remain.  Mr. Burriss noted that the additions must be appropriate for the house-windows, siding, shutters, fishscale.  Mr. Clapsadle said fishscales will be on every gable and he will keep it as historically accurate as possible.
 Mr. Riffle thought they are losing some detail of the original house with the porch wrapping around the side and the bay being obliterated.  This house will be massive.  Mr. Clapsadle said they are removing an unusable too small porch.   Only one neighbor has expressed anything negative, added Mr. Clapsadle.  They don't want to see property values decreased. 
 Mr. Clapsadle said the garage will be a one-story structure with few windows right on the property line.  The fence belongs to the neighbor. 
 He added that currently the roof sticks out 4' beyond flat plain of the house.  The bay juts out beyond the addition and becomes more pronounced by being two stories.  Mr. Riffle said we are losing this view of the house from the side.  Additions should not be stronger than the original house; the addition overshadows the existing house.  Mr. Parris added that we do try to preserve the look of the original house and additions should be complementary to it.  Mr. Clapsadle said they need the roofline as designed for balance.   They wanted to move the garage back but could not, so instead they will duplicate it and add entry element on the one side and the dormer.  They will lose one garage door.  Mr. Burriss said we do not have any issues with the garage.
 Mr. Mitchell thought it looked like an apartment stuck on the back of a house.  Mr. Clapsadle thought the multi element was stronger and the multiplicity of it breaks up the massiveness. 
 Talk ensued about the roof pitch
 Mr. Burris thought the design seems like an unhappy marriage and not complementary.
 Mr. Parris asked whether the applicant wants to table the application pending work on changes or take a vote.  A lot of the original elements of the house are being lost, and there are probably some solutions without losing more square footage.
 Mr. Clapsadle thinks a different solution would be less attractive.  This one is sensitive to the original structure. 
Mr. Parris said we have tried to be consistent with what we are looking for, such as incorporating the original house and being complementary or subordinate.  This plan is complementary but the scale between the new and the old elements is overwhelming.  Mr. Riffle said there is more than just the bay.  Mr. Clapsadle asked whether removing 2' would be better, saying he would run into more physical problems than architectural problems.   Mr. Burris thought that views of the house in walking by are different from looking at the house from the house on the east.  1930's houses were not built to suit large styles of today's dwellers.  
 Other details were discussed, and suggestions were given to the applicant. 
 Mr. Clapsadle wants to table this and go back to the homeowners with these comments.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO TABLE; MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jack Thornborough, 233 South Mulberry - renovating

 Mr. Strayer said this application was brought up and received objections from neighbors.  A letter has been received from Lillian Merrick about landscaping and fence.
 Mr. Thornborough said the neighbor just wants to look at the open lot.  He has purchased 9' from the neighbor on the west to allow more room to plant hemlock trees. The neighbor complained about the fence, but it is just a low picket.  The applicant said the addition appears massive, but he needed the height because of the roof. 
 Mr. Burriss stated that when we looked at this before, there was a two-car garage; Mr. Thornborough said the front elevation looked better this way than in back.  This way we will remove a strong tree; there was no curbcut on the other plan. 
 Mr. Burriss noted we had extensive talk about the door, and the applicant said he might have to add a handrail.  It is clapboard except on the west, where its aluminum and it will be replaced by clapboard.
 Mr. Burriss envisions windows spaced better.  It's a garage and those windows are domestic windows.  They could have a row of three windows up high and take bottom half of windows off and leave three windows.  He is happy with windows on the second floor.  Mr. Thornborough originally wanted French doors.  The architect said it would be magnificent to have it this way or with French doors.   Mr. Parris replied that if he wanted to go back later to French doors, the applicant can come back and request a modification.  This is also true with the solarium.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED, AND HE HAS THE OPTION TO CHANGE WINDOW SIZES IN THE GARAGE.  HE WILL COME BACK TO US FOR ANY CHANGES IN SOLARIUM.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

First Federal S & L, 126 North Prospect Str5eet - Sign

 Mr. Strayer said the application for a freestanding sign meets all criteria, and the total sign package is OK with white and black colors.  Two floodlights are uplighted, and it will be landscaped.   Luke Backus said they do not encourage sand-blasted signs, but this is an HDUI foam vinyl sign only ½' thick.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 04-148 FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN WITH THE STIPULATION THAT IT IS NOT A SAND-BLASTED SIGN BUT A COMPOSITE VINYL FLAT PLANED SIGN.  APPROVAL INCLUDES UPLIGHTING ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SIGN.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. BURRISS  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS A,B,C,D,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 24, 2004.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.


Work Session:
 JEDD.

 Mr. Strayer said GPC was asked to go through the proposal for a JEDD.  Mr. Parris said we are restricting this way too much, i.e., setbacks, height, square footage, amount of greenspace.  Potential businesses can get what they want in Newark and Heath.  If we are trying to attract business, we are competing with every other town.  We need jobs to (1) cut down on traffic and (2) if you live and work in the same community, you are more likely to act as a member of that community.  What's wrong with producing something?  Mr. Burriss added that some light manufacturing might be appropriate, and Ms. O'Keefe agreed only if it does not pollute. 

Next Meetings:     October 13(?) (Betty will be absent and October 27
Adjournment:    11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 9/13/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle, Carl Wilkenfeld (Vice Chair)
Members Absent: none
Visitors Present: John Minsker, Keith Keegan, Kevin Goudy, Nadine Rader, Brian Corbett, Mark Hannahs, John Noblick, Sharon Phelps
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  None
Minutes of August 23, 2004:    Page 2, under Downtown Directional Signs, Line 1, change to "Mr. Parris said that we have seen so many sandwich boards that the idea….   "Mr. Strayer said one problem with the signs already in place is that we could not use those because it might be in violation of ODOT street standards and we would have to put the business related signs elsewhere." Page 3, 4th paragraph, third line, start with JEDD rather than "They."  "Mr. Parris said they were looking at things…."

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO ACCEPT MINUTES AS AMENDED; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
.
Old Business:

Gerald Martin, 116 East Broadway - Renovations

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE THIS APPLICATION FROM THE TABLE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

{Mr. Burriss recused himself from this application.}
 Mr. Strayer said neither the applicant nor the Village could determine exactly where the boundary lines were, so there was a meeting about next steps.  It was decided between Village Council and the Law Director to get an accurate survey.  The new survey indicated where the property lines were.  The face of the building lies on the line and the porch would be on village property, and the applicant is applying to build his new balcony on village property. The law director said it was OK for GPC to move ahead but final approval would wait until there was an agreement for the structure to be added onto.
 Mr. Parris said the last time we had decided to make the decision here.  Now that we know where the property lines are, there needs to be an agreement on approval of this application.  It will be approved through the GPC as a condition, but we need assurance from the Law Director.
 Gerald Martin said the Law Director had said they are not sure where the property lines were, but he told Mr. Strayer to tell GPC to act on the application.  He does not know where the change came in, since the survey does not change anything.  Mr. Strayer replied that when they met with the Law Director, he said since we really don't know where it is, the GPC should act on it and have the Village absolve itself of responsibility.   We told V.C. what we decided, and V.C. thought that was not the right way to go and asked for a survey. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said that since the building is already in the ROW, could it be grandfathered.  GPC could go ahead and work on design changes and hold final approval until the agreement is signed.  Ms. O'Keefe thought it would be a waste of time to go ahead prematurely. 
 Mr. Parris said GPC has pretty much boiled down the design elements, and tonight's update narrows down the plans we asked for.  He wants this application completed as expeditiously as possible. 

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PENDING FURTHER REVIEW FROM THE LAW DIRECTOR AND THE AGREEMENT WITH VILLAGE COUNCIL.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 New Business:

Brian Corbett, 117 South Prospect Street - Signs

 Mr. Strayer said the application for change of use was approved, and now he is asking for two signs for the candy and home-made food business.  The (1) freestanding 8 ¾ sq.ft sign would be white with black lettering, 12' high and 2' from edge of pavement.  Mr. Corbett added that it would be designed like the Footloose sign next door.  The post from which the oval sign will be hung is white
 (2) The window sign is oval but applicant has no dimensions.  It cannot be more than 8 sq.ft.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE WITH PROVISION THAT THE WINDOW SIGN BE NO LARGER THAN 8 SQ.FT AND THE POST IS NO TALLER THAN 8'.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Licking Memorial Health Systems, 100 Galway Drive - sign

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes two temporary free-standing signs for their Tour of Homes, to be up for two weeks.  The sign has been used before but in a different location. 

 MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-135 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Keith Myers,  229 East College Street - Garage Modifications

 Mr. Myers needs to modify the application to cancel request for a studio, so this application is for the garage door only.    The metal carriage door will have panels and square windows and matches the photo provided with application.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 04-136 FOR GARAGE DOORS WITH STYLE THE SAME AS IN THE PICTURE PROVIDED AND THAT THE STUDIO ADDITION WILL NOT BE PART OF THIS APPLICATION.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Donna Lemmon Perkins, 222 South Main Street - Change of Use

  Mr. Strayer said this building is next to the Vet and the applicant seeks a change of use for a title insurance professional office from a residence with an office.  Bob Seaton said they are applying for grandfathering.
 Mr. Parris said they are going from a nonconforming use to a conforming use and any building issues will be addressed by the county.  This is not a business rezoning and we do not have any problem with the change of use. 
 Mr. Riffle reminded him that usually you have to upgrade if you change anything. 

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Sharon and Neil Phelps, 120 W. Broadway - Sign

 Mr. Strayer said GPC has granted approval for change of use from conforming to nonconforming at the former Callard Company site.  The applicant wishes to open a financial planning office.  They will use the free-standing sign but change the lettering with two-tone colors on white signboard.  Only three colors are allowed. 

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT (1) THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF COLORS IS THREE AND GRAY SCALE MAY BE USED  AND (2) FINAL LAYOUT TO BE APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APROVED.

John J. Noblick, 126 E Elm Street (For Dr. and Mrs. Mark Clemente) - Remodeling

 Mr. Noblick said the applicants wish to (1) remodel front porch from half wall to open railings with spindles; (2) add rear porch to support second-story room; (3) new second-story addition over sunroom and above new porch; (4) picket fence.  On (3) the enclosed level there will be a single floor with shed roof for a master suite and bath.  The (1) porch had a concrete floor.  This will keep all existing glass and doors intact. They are not changing the window area on the lower floor.  The footprint is just the porch area.  The previous owner (4) got approval for a larger fence, but that did not occur.  Because the owner saw a finish she liked better, Mr. Parris said we will exclude the fence from this application.  
 Mr. Riffle said it is not visible from the street. 
 Mr. Burriss noted that the details for the front porch are more  consistent with what was there and consistent with the neighborhood.  The addition is architecturally consistent with that of the existing property and does not impact the structure from the street.  The only thing he would want to look at is the proposed shingles.  Mr. Noblick said they are grey on top and green on the addition on the side, so they will try to get them all the same color.  Mr. Strayer could approve final shingle design.  Mr. Noblick said if the pitch is not sufficient for runoff, they will put in an ice shield.  Neighboring properties can't really see the second floor roof. 

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-139 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT (1) THE ROOF SAMPLES BE BROUGHT IN TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND (2) THE FENCE IS NO LONGER PART OF THIS APPLICATION.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.


John J. Noblick, 126 E Elm Street (For Dr. and Mrs. Mark Clemente) - Fence

 For the abovementioned application, they are thinking of dropping the scale of the fence so that the height of the new fence would be of less proportion than the wooden fence that was there.  There is no fence there now. They want to put the lower rail up higher out of the dirt. It's close to 4'. 

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 04-140 AS AN APPLICATION, NOT A MODIFICATION.  (1)  THIS IS FOR THE FENCE ONLY; (2) FENCE IS TO BE WOOD PAINTED WHITE; (3) THE OWNER HAS THE OPTION OF SCALING DOWN THE FENCE SOMEWHAT AND INTENDS TO RAISE THE BOTTOM RAIL.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVE.

Keith Keegan, 324 East Elm Street - Remodeling

 The applicant is restoring the historic structure on Mt. Parnasses.   They found it unsound and unfinished and have removed the rotting wood.  They are applying to make it look like the pictures provided.  They will add a balcony railing.  The sloping roof obscured the original architucture of the house.
 Mr. Burriss asked about the footprint and was told it was the same.  They will add two windows, and the other problem is there is no way to get anything into the second floor, so they want to add 5' wood white treated windows and French door.  One window will be covered when they cover the steps on the basement level.  They will replace the vinyl on the fire-damaged window with wood, the same size. 
 He said the original English Tudor house was built around the farmhouse, and it is odd in proportion. 
 Mr. Burriss applauds the efforts to restore all the unfinished elements of the house, but he would like to see drawings of how it will look and to see window detail.  Mr. Parris, however, is satisfied with these pictures, saying they give him more of a living picture than a line drawing would.  The description provided does a good job of spelling out materials and changes. 

 Mr. Keegan said the cinder-block garage was never finished, and he has taken out the  windows.  They want to cover the house with board and batten, and it will all match.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 04-131 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A THROUGH H 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 8, 2004.  MR. RIFFLE  SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:     September 27 AND October 6 {Betty will be absent}
Adjournment:    9:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 8/23/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 23, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:  Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle, Carl Wilkenfeld (Vice Chair)
Members Absent: Jack Burriss 
Visitors Present:  Barb Hammond, Constance Barsky, Pat Moller, Mary Bibee, Lisa & Jim Green, Dena McKinley, Don Carr, Nick & Melanie Schott, Tod Darfus
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  None
Minutes of July 26, 2004:    MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO ACCEPT MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
Minutes of August 9:  Page 2, Line 10, Change to Ms. O'Keefe asked if the old sign frame could be compared at all to the new frame.   
MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE AS AMENDED; MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:

James Green, 221 North Pearl Street - Door removal

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to restore the multi-family house to single-family status and remove all the extra outside doors.
 Mr. Green said the four doors to be removed would be replaced withh exterior wall siding which matches the existing.  Door No. 4 on the drawing will be turned into a stained-glass window and placed in the opening created by door No. 2.
 Mr. Parris asked whether he could match the dropped siding, and Mr. Green said if he cannot match it, he knows of a mill that can custom make it for him.   
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked what is going to replace Window No. 2 and suggested the applicant have the Village Planner look at the final design to make sure it is visually carried along.

     MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPROVE 04-123 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT ON DOOR No. 2, PRIOR TO FINALIZING THE WINDOW GOING IN, THE APPLICANT SHOW IT TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR HIS OK.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Elizabeth Carr, 130 East Broadway - Change of Use

Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to turn the title company space into a retail store next to the coffeehouse.   It meets all sections of the code.
Ms. Carr noted that it is going to be a French Boutique.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE #04-125 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Elizabeth Carr, 130 East Broadway - Sign

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant is requesting a gold-lettered window sign above the door, and the Mom & Me Vintage General sign will be where the title company name was.  The Number 130 does not count in the measuring, so the sign will be 25"x34".

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 04-126 FOR WINDOW SIGN, APPROXIMATELY 25"X34" WITH GOLD LETTERING. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Tod Darfus, 132 North Prospect Street - sign

 Mr. Strayer said the application is for a 3'x4' gold sign in the front window for his tanning company.  The maximum size allowed is 8 sq.ft.
 Mr. Darfus said he is requesting no other signs.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-129 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT IT BE NO LARGER THAN 8 SQ.FT.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A THROUGH 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 AUGUST 20, 2004.  MR. RIFFLE  SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Melanie and Nick Schott - Car Wash
 The applicants wish to open a one- or two-bay car wash which would require rezoning for Village Services.  Mr. Schott, 660 West Broadway, said the owner of the existing car wash was not interested in selling, so they looked around for a possible perfect location at an affordable price.  They would like to install the completely automatic car wash at 303 South Main Street with the entrance on Munson Street.  There are three lots, each about 50'x150'.  They would buy the house and lots and rent out the house.  Mrs. Schott noted that there are no other affordable village lots available with water and sewer.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that the GPC tends not to approve a business in a residential district, and that would be a good lot for a house.  A car wash outside the village would be a better idea, but Mrs. Schott said that would be too expensive.   Mr. Schott said they could buffer it with landscaping. 
Mr. Wilkenfeld also asked whether they have talked to the owners of the IGA, but Mrs. Schott said there is no city water there, and Mr. Strayer said they need to be more on a main road for a car wash. 
 Ms. O'Keefe asked whether they have talked to the neighbors yet, and they said No, they wanted GPC feedback first.
 Mr. Parris said the trouble with spot zoning is that nobody knows what business would go in there in the future.  Many businesses are acceptable under the code. If the contiguous owners are in favor of this, he would be more inclined to approve it.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld felt it would be difficult for GPC to approve this venture.
 Mr. Parris summarized the discussion:  (1) Rezoning, (2) Approval of the neighbors; (3) A car wash is a destination business and could be off the road; (4) increased traffic and disruption for cars turning left to a car wash; (5) Talk to the Chamber of Commerce for another possible location.

 Downtown Directional Signs

 Mr. Parris said that we have seen so many sandwich boards that the idea of posted business signs is an alternative. He feels that off-street businesses need to be promoted
 Mr. Strayer said one problem with the signs already in place is that we could not use those because it might be in violation of ODOT street standards and we would have to put the business related signs elsewhere.  These are good for cars but not pedestrians and are not specific to businesses. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld thought it was a great idea but consistency is important.
 Barbara Hammond from the Chamber of Commerce said people want to be directed to more specific shops.  She thought removable signs with arrows would be easy to replace, and could be put at least on the corners of (1) Broadway and Prospect, (2) Broadway and Main, (3) Cherry Street, (4) Elm and Maple Streets.  She suggested that if such signs get put up, businesses should remove their sidewalk signs.  This is a do-or-die holiday season, and she would like to see billboards.
 Other ideas presented were a kiosk in Alltel Park, bulletin boards, a glass display map like the one at Burke Hall, and paper maps to be handed out. A street clock is under consideration. Mr. Strayer said he would check for designs with Keith Meyers and with the Village. 
 Next steps are to (1) plan another work session with GPC; (2) finalize a design; (3) work with C of C and come back with application to get approval for location and number of signs; (4) remove sidewalk signs; (5) talk with Streets and Landscape Committee.

Jedd

 Constance.Barsky said her committee wanted to (1) pass their ideas along to the Granville Township Zoning Commission as the Township did and (2) look over the zoning portion.  Mr. Strayer summarized information both from the Township and from GPC.  The number of businesses could be expanded, but they have centered on office-type businesses, two- or three-story buildings in an office park.  They looked at the Master Plan and looked at what would be the best for the Township and the Village.  She said the Township Trustees have been looking at sites, and the Village has sat down with them.
 Mr. Parris said we would want to know what land they are interested in, and Ms. Barsky listed the Dow and Owens properties.  Light manufacturing has to be research-related and production has to be prototype related.  JEDD are not offering anyone to have light manufacturing.  Mr. Parris said they were looking at things good for the Village and staying away from retail, but if they get too fussy, fewer businesses will come in.
 Mr. Strayer said they tried to mimic the Research Triangle in North Carolina.  An industrial park would be attractive to potential businesses.  For more than one company in a complex, this will be like a PUD.  People will be looking for a location where it is already supported in the town.  Mr. Wilkenfeld felt we need to concentrate on one thing.  We have an educated population, so bringing in research triangle types and computer things would create white-collar jobs.  JEDD is a big picture with synergy among all participants.  He thought JEDD should include more than two areas.
 Ms. Barsky said one thing to keep in mind is in discussions with the Township, there should be flexibility about certain jobs and certain areas.    There should be water/sewer/zoning/charter set up.  Village Council has promised water and sewer.  It's apparent that the income from the JEDD is ten years out before the money starts coming in.
 For the next meeting Ms. Barsky will bring in a more specific outline.

Next Meetings:     September 13 and September 27
Adjournment:    9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 8/9/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 9, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Tim Riffle
Members Absent:  Mark Parris (Chair),  Carl Wilkenfeld (Vice Chair)
Visitors Present:  Barb Hammond, Richard Salvage, Kim Salvage, Dick Daly, Tim Hughes, Cindy Griesse, Kent Morgan, Jim Siegel, Chris and Sherry Campbell, Tod Darfus, Tom from Meleca, David Meleca
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  Barbara Hammond stated that signage is needed at corners to direct people to retail shops on side streets, and she wants some signs up within three months.  It would benefit the shops and eliminate sandwich signs.    She volunteered her help with this project.  It was decided to have some casual discussion following the meeting.
Minutes of July 26, 2004:   Minutes were postponed until the next meeting.

New Business:

Tim Hughes, 142 East Broadway - wall sign

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes two signs for his new business: (1) wall sign over the awning and (2) wall sign on the side.  The size of the existing sign will not change, but words will change to new company name, "Keller Williams Greater Columbus Realty."  It will be dark red background with gray lettering.  There was some discussion on who has rightful lease on that building, and Mr. Hughes said he has the proper documents to give him rightful leasehold. He leases verbally from Dave Klauder and has four months left on the current lease.  Coldwell Barker bought the building and will take possession September 1, so Mr. Hughes needs permission for his new sign.  They will put up a new, color-coordinated awning later.  When they paint the sign, they will repaint the borders.  The (2) wall sign on the side will be a panel covering the words.
 
     MR. RIFFLE  MOVED TO APPROVE 04-107 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Chris Campbell, 215 North Pearl Street - Fence

Mr. Strayer said all criteria are met for this application for a fence along north side of driveway from garage to the house and to install a fence along west and north sides of lot.  Mr. Campbell said they will eventually fence in the entire property and the treatment along the drive will be the same as in the picture-a privacy fence in the back along the garage. It stops there and does not turn the corner.  It will be the same as in the north property line. There will be no fence in the front; there is landscaping there and a retaining wall. 

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE #04-109 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Tod Darfus, 132 N. Prospect St. - Change of Use
 Mr. Strayer said the applicant is requesting a change of use from restaurant to an upscale 4-bed tanning salon.  Ms. O'Keefe asked about utilities and Mr. Darfus said he has everything on board for licensing and electricity as well as insurance.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-110 AS SUBMITTED. MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

St, Edwards Catholic Church, 785 Newark-Granville Road - sign

 The application is for a new 48 sq.ft. ground sign to be illuminated by floodlights.  The representative said it will be the same limestone base and cap as the church.  Lettering is to be solid brass and letters with lights on either side.  He was under the impression the sign maximum was the area enclosing the letters, rather than the entire structure.  It will be in the same location as the existing sign.
 Mr. Burriss asked about landscaping, and Mr. Meleca said they have nothing formal yet. Mr. Burriss added that in other applications the lighting has been hidden in landscaping, and Mr. Meleca said they will be adding subtle planting.    The new sign will be 8" wider than the existing but the same height.  Text is smaller.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked if the old sign frame could be compared at all to the new frame.
 Mr. Strayer said that for free-standing signs we have used the entire sign, not just the portion with letters.  The only exception is a post sign underneath a hanging sign.
 From the audience Richard Salvage said in similar situations for other churches and schools the GPC found it appropriate to grant larger signs, in view of the larger buildings.  In the case of such precedent, he would recommend approving this sign. 

 Mr. Burriss read the criteria for variances, and it appeared that No. E. would be appropriate:

D.  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.

He thinks the new sign is more attractive and more in keeping with the signage we have encouraged within the village.  It will be more subtle and going away from being internally lit. It is architecturally consistent and complementary with the new church being built.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-111 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Barbara Hammond, 115 North Prospect St. - Awning

 Mr. Strayer said this application matches the sign application we approved
at the last meeting.
 Ms. Hammond said it will be a plain purple awning, matching color of the sign.  It will be just over the door and cover the A.C. unit and offer protection for walkers.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 04-115 FOR AWNING AS SUBMITTED.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Kim Salvage, 130 North Prospect Street - Change of Use

 Ms. Salvage wants to open a knitting shop in the space where the bookstore was.  She said her product will use natural fibers, and she will teach knitting classes.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-121 FOR CHANGE OF USE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Kim Salvage, 130 North Prospect Street - Signs
 
 Ms. Salvage also wishes signage for the abovementioned application.  She wants (1) a wall sign, (2) a projecting sign, and (3) a sidewalk sign. The projecting sign will be on the corner of the building, rather than at the storefront and will have two chains hanging from a wrought iron bracket.  The wood signs will be pale cream with dark red text.  The sidewalk sign will be taken in at day's end. Tod Darfus, the landlord has no problem with the project.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE SIGNAGE FOR 04-118 AS SUMITTED.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Kent Morgan, 228 N. Pearl Street - Porch

 Mr. Strayer said the application is for construction of a front porch over the existing concrete patio. 
 Mr. Morgan added that he wants to add some design element to the front.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked if the old sign frame could be compared at all to the new frame.
Mr. Riffle asked whether the overhang on the porch will cover the windows, and Mr. Morgan stated it will stop above the window and be below the lower window.  There may be a trim piece along bottom and top and there may be a railing on the porch.
Mr. Burriss asked about the dimensions and was told the front to corner goes off at a 45º angle and they will hold the posts as close to that as possible.  When asked about lighting fixtures, Mr. Morgan said the light would not be visible from the street.
They will try to get the same porch roof pitch as the house, and any railing would be attached to the wood siding.
Mr. Burriss is comfortable with the concept but less comfortable with the railings.  One thought might be to pass this with final details to be submitted to the Village Planner.  North Pearl contains a number of significant houses, and we have worked hard to maintain that.  When something is submitted to us to be built, we need to have it tied down as much as possible in detail for the permanent record.  Overhangs on roof, scale of posts, relationship of posts to existing porch and how far they are inset are some details missing. 

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 04-117 FOR PORCH CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENT UPON SATISFYING THE VILLAGE PLANNER WITH DETAILS INCLUDING (1) SCALE OF POSTS, (2) SIDE RAILINGS, (3) ROOF PITCH AND OVERHANG WIDTH OF PORCH AND WHERE THEY INTERSECT WITH THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, CONSIDERING WINDOW LOCATION.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Finding of Fact:  MR. RIFFLE  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A THROUGH H 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 AUGUST 5, 2004.  MR. MITCHELL  SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Opera House Park Gazebo

 Norm Engle and Dick Daly made a proposal to V.C. about the possibility of Kiwanis's placing a gazebo in the park for the Bicentennial, and they requested we come before GPC for advice regarding appropriateness of this structure.  Mr. Strayer added that V.C. wanted our thoughts on concept as a legacy from Kiwanis and scale and design option.

 Ms. O'Keefe asked about their timeline, and Mr. Engle thought this fall would be best or next spring.  They have not appropriated money yet. 
 Mr. Burriss had hoped for such a structure for a long time, and this would be historically appropriate, but his concerns were not about concept so much as that we get a tasteful structure.  He likes the ones in Bellville and Newark because they are elevated for dignity and presence.  But Mr. Daly said they did not want to give GPC any predisposed ideas.  Mr. Engle said this would be an open space rather than with seating.

 Jim Siegel had opposing opinions.  He worked on the original design, which was for greenspace to be used by various groups and churches.  A gazebo would destroy the ambiance and openness of the park.  Utilities are underground.  He has been caretaker of the park since it began and made a lot of improvements.  A gazebo is a nice gift but this is the wrong place.  Also, it would require much maintenance.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked whether Kiwanis has gotten feedback from others, and Mr. Engle said they have not sought feedback yet.
 Mr. Burriss asked whether a fountain was requested, and the answer was No. 
 Mr. Siegel had proposed a vets' memorial with flagpole, since there is no veterans' recognition in Granville.  The trees in the southeast are dedicated memorial trees, and putting a gazebo in the southwest would involve removal of several trees and having to redo the sidewalks.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked about a work of art.
 Mr. Daly said the last thing we need is something that would cause friction.
 Mr. Burriss asked about using the bell. It could be used for special occasions, and could be elevated with an arch underneath.  He asked whether a proposal could go ahead in theory and then get public input and was told Yes.
 Mr. Burriss likes the gazebo idea but feels the need to explore the various user groups and learn whether it would actually be used.  He suggested contacting the Village Beautification Society and the Recreational Commission. 
 Mr. Riffle thought that done correctly it can only enhance the park, but put it farther back  to allow openness in the front.
 Mr. Burriss asked what is going on in St. Luke's back yard, for at one time that was a nice little garden.  Could the gazebo straddle it and not eat up open space. 
 Mr. Burriss suggested placing the gazebo in front of Stone Hall to replace the Concert on the Green stage. 
 Mr. Strayer will talk to some of the users of the park about how they feel about the idea.
 
Discussion on Signs:

 In regard to the signs suggested by Barbara Hammond earlier, Mr. Burriss asked who would pay for such signs?  He would like one for his business too, farther out on Route 16.  He is not in favor of more sandwich boards and suggested little signs on chains hanging from lampposts.  Signs now are too high and don't help the merchants very much.  Put them lower and they interfere with traffic and pedestrians.  At the Elms they have a nice sign.  Could we come up with a bracket on corners of buildings? He suggested maps listing all businesses to be given away freely.   Our businesses cannot survive with local clientele; we are becoming more and more a destination town, and we need to offer visitors help finding businesses. 
 Mr. Strayer reminded the group that plans for a kiosk are underway for Alltel Park.  We have the informational signs now, and with sandwich boards, signs are everywhere. 
 Could the Chamber of Commerce negotiate removal of sandwich boards in exchange for a way-finding sign?  Ms. O'Keefe thought it was up to them to suggest a proposal.  But Mr. Strayer said they are looking at us to do it and give them suggestions. 
 Mr. Mitchell suggested getting a proposal from Rodger Kessler, and consensus agreed. 
 Mr. Burriss said the sign code would have to be rewritten. We do not allow off-premises signs now. Would we allow them to have logos?   He would like to schedule a work session with the Chamber of Commerce at our next meeting.   
 Mr. Mitchell wants to severely restrict sandwich boards.

Next Meetings:    August 23 and September 6 (Labor Day)
Adjournment:    9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 7/26/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 26, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair),  Tim Riffle
Members Absent:  Carl Wilkenfeld
Visitors Present:  Gerald Martin,   Barb Hammond, Patty Urbatis, Ben Rader, Tom McCullough
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of July 12, 2004:   MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Gerald Martin, 116 East Broadway - Renovations
IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO REMOVE THIS APPLICATION FROM THE TABLE.

 Mr. Strayer said the last time there were concerns:  (1) signs and (2) building on the shared wall along the side of the building.  We went back to the Village and looked but were unable to find the resolution so he will get that to you at another time.  He asked the Law Director for his advice. The applicant has waived the 45-day time limit for our decision. 
Mr. Parris thought it would be a question of whether the Village entered into agreement with the person who owns the land or to the deed itself.  Mr. Strayer will check records from 1979 to find it.  Mr. Martin has no such record in his deed.
 Mr. Parris did not want to make architectural recommendations, but any recommendations we have made should be considered.   This is a unique business district and we need to consider not just this building but how all the building get tied together. 
 We should review the criteria for AROD:

(a) Is it stylistically compatible  with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?

Mr. Burriss said this area has been less reflective of other buildings downtown. In the early 1900's much of the detail was removed from that building, and some of the efforts proposed here bring back some of that richness of detail.  We have a ways to go to discuss the details, but this does enrich the building and make it more in historical character.  He had concerns of some of the uses of the balcony; historically, there have been several second-floor balconies in Granville and they have been good spaces.  There needs to be great effort toward monitoring the use of that space. 
Mr. Parris could find two other examples, above the jeweler's and the Buxton Inn, and this plan adds details to a big mass, and he wants to be sure it blends with the rest of the block. Not knowing what the usage will be, we cannot make a decision on a zoning matter with an eye toward what might happen in the future.   Mr. Burriss said some of the issues of usage could be handled appropriately with good architectural planning.  There was a large gallery area on the Opera House, and that was a positive element.    The building located where Taylor's now is had a gallery, and on the Avery-Downer House until its current restoration there was a gallery on the second floor. 
 Mr. Riffle said because of the height, the second-floor balcony does fit it. 
 Ms. O'Keefe said there is a balcony in the back, and  Mr. Burris said we discussed that last week. We wanted clarification of detailing and the applicant said he would continue that discussion.  We wanted to detail what is on the building itself rather than what is on the church next door.  Mr. Burriss added that what we are trying to achieve tonight is approval of concept.  Mr. Parris said the first thing is to look at the criteria.  This is probably the largest commercial renovation since the new Taylor's, so it deserves careful evaluation first and then we will look at detail.  Until the question of gaining access to the alley gets answered, we cannot render a decision on the application.     Mr. Parris feels it would be important to get our thoughts on record for each point. 
 Mr. Mitchell has no problem with this item.  Uses should be regulated eventually.   
 Mr. Riffle said the uses will be regulated by code.  The building lends itself to second-floor balcony just from the sheer size of it.
 
(b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.
Mr.  Burris stated that this item is the first commercial building that starts our downtown and some of the improvements would improve the character of the building.  It does refer back to things that were part of our history downtown, such as an active second floor. 

(c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.
 Mr. Parris said having a second floor lends symmetry to the building that wasn't there before.  Having it fully occupied will contribute to the district.  Mr. Burris said adding a second-floor dining space is unique, and any time we can offer a variety we are improving the draw of Granville. 
 Mr Riffle said anything that leaves space to expand should be encouraged.

(d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.
 Mr. Parris thought this echoed what we have noted in No. c.
Mr. Burriss said we probably should look at things like dumpster location, screening of ACs,  fans, etc.  In the final drawings it will be helpful to locate these items. 
 Mr. Martin asked what are the next steps, and Mr. Parris said the Village needs to give permission for the encroachment on their property.  Does this go to the person or to the property?  The applicant must talk with the Village for the concept, and Mr. Strayer said this will not change with ownership or physical configuration.  Mr. Strayer will continue his research on this question.  Mr. Martin found nothing at the courthouse.
 Mr. Parris opened the discussion for this public meeting to the public.  There were no comments.
 Mr. Martin's architect said there were no issues of great concern. We will wait for the pending resolution before making more drawings.
 Mr. Parris recommended getting specific materials, etc., to show us, particularly those expressed at the last meeting. 

 MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.  MR. RIFFLE  SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:
Sharon Joseph, 115 North Prospect - signs

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes several signs for the new business:  (1) sidewalk sign, (2) wall sign, (3) window sign, and (4) projecting sign.  She has withdrawn application for (1) sidewalk sign, with anticipation that better signage will be placed at the corner for several businesses.  Barb Hammond explained the application in more detail.  The color is pretty close to what is in our packets. 
 Mr. Burriss asked about the wall sign border and Ms. Hammond said they will all be consistent in borders.
     MR. BURRISS  MOVED TO APPROVE 04-098 WITH CONDITION THAT THE SIDEWALK SIGN BE REMOVED FROM THE APPLICATION.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Tim Ryan, 136 South Main Street - freestanding wall sign

Mr. Strayer said this one sign will be transferred to South Main Street.  The wall signs are really identification signs, so a variance will not be needed.  These are consistent with other tenants of the building. 
Mr. Parriss asked about the multiple business sign and Mr. Strayer said there is another sign for the other building.  Mr. Burriss asked whether the sign would match that of Steve Mershon and was told, Yes, it would be the same size.  The hanging sign will be 12"x36".  The colors are dark blue letters on white background with blue border.  Mr. Parris thought the motion should state the sign should be same size and shape as the one on the wall, and specify colors.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE #04-099 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE WALL SIGN MATCH THE EXISTING WALL SIGN IN SIZE AND SHAPE AND THAT THE HANGING SIGN BE BLUE WITH WHITE BACKGROUND.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ben Rader (Patty Urbatis), 120 ½ East Broadway, Canopy, 04-100
 Mr. Strayer said this is between Aladdin and Home Pleasures.  Mr. Parriss can understand the dilemma based on what's there now, surrounded by other, green, signs.    Patty Urbatis said there will be different levels as well.  Mr. Parris asked why it can't be brought down with less steep a pitch to just above the transom to be more consistent with Home Pleasures height.
 Mr. Burriss had less concern with the color differences but wants to bring down the top to expose the transom and add more light. Mr. Mitchell doesn't think we need consistency.  Mr. Riffle noted that this specifies a separate entry.   Mr. Burrriss asked about lighting and was told No, it would not be lit.  Although he doesn't like to cover the transom, he feels it is justified and he's thankful for the improvement to the Home Pleasures transoms.  Mr. Burriss asked whether there could be a white edge on the scallop, and Ms. Hammond agreed.  Mr. Burriss said a sign on the window was historic, and this is neat and clean and wondered whether we could consider this, but Mr. Parris was reluctant to do so.
 Regarding just the canopy, the sheets provided tonight were not part of the original application.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE WITH DRAWINGS SUBMITTED TONIGHT, AND THE CANOPY WILL HAVE A WHITE EDGING ON IT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ben Rader (Patty Urbatis),_120 ½ East Broadway, sign, 04-101

 The application is for the sign with white lettering for the abovementioned canopy

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 04-101 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ben Rader (Patty Urbatis),_120 ½ East Broadway, wall sign 04-103

 The applicant wants an 8'x24" wall sign, and Mr. Strayer said this meets all criteria.  Mr. Parriss was concerned about the placement and even if it hangs below the fascia it shouldn't cover the detail. It could go above, but we aren't sure where.  Mr. Burriss wondered whether the sign could have a blue border to have an edge to make it feel more finished.  Patty Urbatis was concerned about going over the maximum size.  Mr. Riffle thought it seemed big and that the mounting would look better below the dentil. She would have to work on the overall size of the board without changing the graphics. Members discussed the location in detail, and  Mr. Parriss asked whether Patty Urbatis could work with the Village Planner and she said Yes.
 
MR. BURRISS MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF 04-103 FOR THE WALL SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT 120 ½ E. BROADWAY, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE TO BE WORKED OUT AND APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ben Rader (Patty Urbatis),_120 ½ East Broadway, window sign 04-108

 The sign will be on the front door, there is no graphic included with application, but members saw a photo.  It will include her name, in white lettering.
 Mr. Parris said we could approve the application as long as we can agree on a color and the font being consistent with other signage, with final approval of layout by Village Planner.  Once she has the complete design made, she is to show it to him.  The font can be the same with different sized fonts.  It must conform with criteria for window signs.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-108 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT WHEN THE SIGNAGE IS DESIGNED, FONT STYLE AND COLOR  WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER SIGNAGE, WITH FINAL APPROVAL TO BE GRANTED BY MR. STRAYER.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ben Rader (Patty Urbatis),_120 ½ East Broadway, sandwich board 04-102

 Mr. Strayer said the application is for a sidewalk sign outside the entrance door.  This would be the second sidewalk sign for the building and would require a variance.  There is no graphic provided with the application but a photo was shown. It would be blue with white lettering.
 Mr. Parris would have to see a very well done representation before he would consider this.    Ms. Urbatis does not feel she really will need this ultimately and will use it as a temporary sign.  Mr. Burriss asked how long it would be up and suggested 40 days, but may remain until canopy and other signage is complete.  The location was discussed, and it should be closer to the building, away from main walkway.  It may only be displayed when office is opened. 

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-102, WITH CONDITIONS:  (1) A TEMPORARY SANDWICH SIGN TO BE ERECTED (2) FOR A MAXIMUM OF 40 DAYS; (3)  IT WILL  COME DOWN WHEN PERMANENT SIGNAGE IS ERECTED, AND (4) WILL BE DISPLAYED ONLY DURING HOURS OF OPERATION.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Constance Barsky, 221 East Elm St. - roof replacement

The applicant wishes to replace an asphalt roof with a standing seam metal roof.  She states that the metal roof is historically accurate with the original house.  It is over the dining room extension.  Mr. Strayer thought it might be a tan/brown color.  Mr. Burriss would be willing to approve as long as Mr. Strayer approved the color.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE VILLAGE PLANNER WILL APPROVE FINAL COLOR.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. RIFFLE  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A THROUGH H 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 JULY 23, 2004.  MR. BURRISS  SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:    August 23 and September 6 (Labor Day)
Adjournment:    p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen from tape

Planning Minutes 7/12/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 12, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Mark Parris (Chair),  Carl Wilkenfeld.  
Members Absent: Tim Riffle, Village Council Rep.
Visitors Present:  Gerald Martin, Connie Westbrook, Bev Danen, Dana and Brian King
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of June 28, 2004:  Mr. Parris noted on Page 1, Line 7 from bottom, that such signs are permitted, but Ms. Barsky's preference would be other than sand-blasted.
 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Gerald Martin, 116 East Broadway - Renovations
  Mr. Strayer said the applicant wants to enclose a stairwell, remodel the porch, and make balcony improvements to the First Federal Building. Absent member Ms. Barsky had listed her concerns to Mr. Strayer as follows:  (1) Posts in front of porch and balcony should match; (2) on western elevation, the railing around doors and balcony should match railings out front; (3) she did not feel the front door and window would fit the style in the rest of the building; (4) if stairwell is on the lot line in the alley, clarification is needed from the Village Manager, since the alley is Village-owned.  Mr. Martin said the existing stairwell protrudes 5' into the alley, and he would use that space and not set a precedent. 
 Mr. Mitchell asked whether there is a written document that gives the applicant the right to build into the alley, and Mr. Parris thought it would be on a deed.  Mr. Burriss noted that the space requested is no bigger than that there now.  The Chair thought we could examine the rest of the application and deal with this issue later.
 Mr. Burriss compared this project to the Buxton Inn with its balcony, but he thought the two-story porch and the flatness of the building seem not to be married very happily.  He also questioned the flat roofs from a maintenance viewpoint.  The question of downspouts arose, and Mr. Martin said the one downspout comes down the corner of the building.  The sidewalk would be built up higher for a handicapped entrance.
 Mr. Martin described further the architectural elements and doors and windows.  He said the trim would be a light gray  on the white building. 
 Mr. Parris thought it would be better to keep what's on this building rather than trying to incorporate something similar to the Methodist Church next door.   The architectural elements are in character with the existing building. 
 Members said they would need more detail on materials, color, signage, pitched roof, detail on trim, window alignment.  Also is needed is approval for intruding into the alley by the Village Manager. 
 Ben Rader had a question about the dumpster in the back and wants assurance the back alley will be kept clean.  Mr. Martin thought it was still too early to talk about that.
 Connie Westbrook, from the church, wanted to be a good neighbor and assumes the church will be kept aware of plans underway.
 Mr. Parris said we will have to table this because of the question on the alley side.  We will look at any legal documents, deeds, or easements that exist.  Mr. Martin agreed to table the application.

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

DBM Enterprises, Pinehurst Drive/Welsh Hills Road - Lot Split
 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes a lot split at the top of Hilengreen, and he explained the exact acreage of the 4 parcels involved with their different easements.  The two land-locked parcels will have permanent easements from other lots, so no variance would be required.  If agreements between property owners are signed, that is all that is required. 
 Bill Wright, Manager, said they have an agreement between the Homeowners Association and Donald Ross Drive owners.  Mr. Wilkenfeld is not sure we need the legal document to support the easement since that is something between parties. 
 Mr. Strayer noted there would be no traffic concerns but he wondered about access through the Gregory property.  Mr. Wright said this is a PUD, and there was a feeling that there was an easement, but there is nothing in writing.  Mr. Strayer said it was previously platted as condos, but they were never built.  GPC can approve a lot split, but for a PUD we would make a recommendation. 
     MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPROVE 04-091 AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Brian and Dana Krieg, 226 East Maple Street - Renovations
 The Craigs wish to add a second story 16' beyond the house in the rear.  The original 1920 two rooms were added to later by a one-story addition in the rear.  The design would locate the property 7' off the east property line.  They need a bigger kitchen area and larger windows with a bay.  They want to continue the porch along the side the full length and turn the corner. 
 Mr. Strayer said they would not need a variance even though they are within minimum setback because they would be building straight back and not intruding any further into the setback.  Mrs. Krieg said they want to run the porch full width and add a window above the door, which will be symmetrical, two and two, above the door. The porch floor would be wood, and they will replace the screen door with an open design screen.
 Mr. Burriss wanted to look at pictures of other houses in the neighborhood for perspective.  He wondered whether the fence would come off the bay window, and Mrs. Krieg said it would be easier to install and would match up with the neighbor's fence line.  Mr. Burriss would prefer locating the fence somewhere else, and Mr. Parris thought it should go in the back.   
 Mr. Parris wants to see details on the spindles, windows, mullions, trim, downspouts, AC units, screening, and materials with the final plan.  Mr. Burriss specifically asked about the break between old and new sections, differences in width, and lowering the ridge on the roof.  He recommended making the north side less like the window salesman came through and more like something unique. 
 Mr. Parris suggested a trim board all the way across under the eaves and serve as top trim.  He thought a blind window could be added to the east to break up the width.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM 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 JULY 12, 2004.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:   July 26 (Mr. Wilkenfeld will be absent) and August 9
Adjournment:   9:06 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Planning Minutes 6/28/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 28, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:  Constance Barsky (V.C.), Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle, Carl Wilkenfeld.  The Chair welcomed Tom Mitchell as a new member of GPC. 
Members Absent:
Visitors Present:  Sharon Joseph, John Thornborough, Rose Echeandia, Dian and Brian King
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  none

Recognition of Richard Salvage:  In recognition of Mr. Salvage's nine years of service on the GPC, the Chair read a resolution of appreciation.  Following the reading, Mr. Parris personally thanked Mr. Salvage for all the time he put in, as member and as Chair.  Sometimes what we do here is rather obscure to the community, but Mr. Parris thanked Mr. Salvage for his steady leadership and commitment to the community.
 Mr. Salvage responded by saying, "It has been a pleasure to work with you.  Sometimes it has been more of a pleasure than others, but we did a good job and we did preserve the community.  With Tom Mitchell, you have a good replacement who knows the importance of the GPC to the village."

Election of Vice Chair:  MR. BURRIS NOMINATED CARL WILKENFELD AS VICE CHAIR, AND THE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED BY VOICE VOTE.

Minutes of June 14, 2004:  Mr. Parris noted that the code states that an OPEN sign is incidental, so please delete the second half of the first paragraph.
 MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Sharon Joseph, 115 N. Prospect - change of use

  Mr. Strayer said the applicant wants to change the use in her building from a doctor's office to a retail store, a permitted use.  Ms. Joseph said Barbara Hammond is opening a women's apparel store.  Mr. Burriss noted that anything we can do to add retail space downtown is all to the good.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-085 AS PRESENTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Judith Thomas, 136 East Broadway - Sign

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to remove the Welsh Hills Travel sign and replace it with a new half-circle projecting sign in dark brown and ivory for her business on the existing bracket. 
 Mr. Parris noted that such signs are permitted, but Ms. Barskey's preference would be other than sand-blasted.  Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested the option of approval with condition that a different material could be used.  Mr. Parris wanted to be as specific as possible and suggested bringing in the final design to the Village Planner.
 Mr. Burriss wanted to be sure the curve on the sign and the curve on the bracket are coordinated, and he wanted to see how it is to be attached.  The Village Planner could also approve this.

     MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPROVE 04-087 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT (1) THE CURVE IN THE METAL BRACKET AND THE CURVE ON THE SIGN ARE COORDINATED WITH ONE ANOTHER; (2) WHERE THE SIGN IS MOUNTED TO THE BRACKET WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER; (3) IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO USE A DIFFERENT WOOD TREATMENT, IT CAN BE BROUGHT TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR APPROVAL.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION
AS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bernie Williams, 119 East Elm Street - Sign

 Mr. Williams has tenants who wish to open a video game and movie shop next to the Village Baker and wish to install two vinyl gray and orange window signs.  The request meets all criteria. 
 Mr. Burriss would change the "Open" sign from red to orange, and the applicants had no problem with this request.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 04-089 AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Rose Echeandia, 121 South Prospect Street - Sign

 Having been denied her request for a sign at Broadway and Prospect, the applicant wishes to have a sidewalk sign on the grass at the store itself.    The Commission discussed placement of such a sign so as not to impede pedestrians or cars, and there is not much space available.  "Temporary" means such signs are taken in at night.  The maximum height is 48", and this one would be 52". 
 Mr. Parris asked whether Ms. Echeandia had a design for her sign, and she said her sign-maker does not provide computer-designed signs, but she thought it might be masonite.   The open space would be a chalkboard.   He would like to see specifics on sizes, color, and materials, and Mr. Strayer said it would match the hanging sign.  It is important to match the other signs.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIDEWALK SIGN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) PLACEMENT OF THE SIGN IS TO BE BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE STORE, IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING, OUT OF THE WAY OF THE OPENING OF CAR DOORS, AND APPROVED BY VILLAGE PLANNER; (2) SIGN MAY BE NO LARGER THAN 48" HIGH; (3) FONT AND COLORS OF THE SIGN WILL BE THE SAME AS THE CURRENT SIGN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS; AND (4) FINAL DESIGN TO BE SHOWN TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Sessions:

Jack Thornborough, 233 South Mulberry Street - Renovations

 The property is two houses attached together before 1866, lately used as rentals, and Mr. Thornborough wants to renovate it as a single-family home.  He will add a porch and breakfast bay on northwest side, two Gothic gables on south, enclose the west porch, add a west side porch, new slate-looking ceiling, replace vinyl with wood clapboard, rebuild windows, and add a two-car garage.  Landscaping and fence with patio will be added later.   Complete description may be read in the presentation packet provided by the applicant. He plans to present the formal application on July 12.  He will not be present, but the architect will be here.
They will lower the second floor by one foot and ceilings below will be dropped a foot.  The chimneys will be removed and the fireplace restored.
The plan is to enclose the entrance on Maple Street, where there is a door now.  The awning will be removed.   The door will be made to look like a door, but from the inside it will be closed off.  Mr. Burriss suggested considering a blind window with closed shutters; a floating door on a main elevation would concern him.  Part of the beauty of the Gothic is if you draw a line down the center, everything is equal and you want to maintain that imagery.  If the door is sided in, it will look like something is missing.  Mr. Riffle suggested adding a decorative small porch rather than shutters, and Mr. Mitchell said the inside plan must be considered also.  Mr. Burriss asked whether the discarded sandstone could be used for steps, and the answer was Yes.  Mr. Riffle thought concrete blocks could be faced with sandstone and railings might be required. 
Mr. Burriss wanted to ensure that the slope over porches and bay window were sufficient to repel snow and rain.  He thanked the applicant for taking on this project; other people were thinking about demolition.   
Ms. Barsky hopes for consistency in windows and consider that when the two houses were built, windows were 2 over 2, and sometimes with weighted glass. 

Brian and Ann Craig, 226 East Maple Street - Addition

 The Craigs wish to add a second story 16' beyond the house in the rear.  The original 1920 two rooms were added to later by a one-story addition in the rear.  The design would locate the property 7' off the east property line, and would require a variance.  They need a bigger kitchen area and larger windows with a bay.  They want to continue the porch along the side the full length and turn the corner. 
 Mr. Parris hoped he would distinguish between the old and new sections, blending them well together.  Mr. Burriss wants to see site plans with scale and ratio, photographs, colors, materials, window trim and height, roofing, gutters, mechanicals, details on porch posts.  Porches do not go under bay windows.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A, 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 JUNE 25, 2004.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Matters:  Ms. Barsky wondered whether GPC could work with V.C. to eliminate sidewalk signs in the future. The street corner signs were intended to direct visitors to businesses, and the proliferation defeats their aims.   Mr. Parris agreed and thought these signs were getting too cluttered.  The original intention was for restaurants to post their daily specials. Mr. Burriss wants to clarify "no changeable signs."
GPC discussed whether it was "anti-business,"  but we are interpreting the code. 
 Mr. Burriss added that many businesses are in a tenuous situation and anything that can be done to help them should be done.  He thought a dialog with V.C. was a good idea.  Something needs to be done to attract businesses to downtown.  Mr. Strayer said the Economic Development Committee is looking at incentives to provide space for retailers, but often owners are charging too much rent.  Businesses need to cater to our citizens as well as to the tourist trade.

Next Meetings:  July 12 and July 26
Adjournment:   9:47 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Planning Minutes 6/14/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle
Members Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld 
Visitors Present:  Mr. and Mrs. James Betts, Steve Fowler
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  none

Minutes of May 10, 2004:   MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:
James Betts, 123 S. Mulberry Street - Garage and porch

  Mr. Strayer said the applicant wants to add a 20'x20' one-story garage.  BZBA granted variance approval for a 0' setback on west line and 4' setback on north line. 
Mr. Betts said the existing carport will be removed as well as a piece of siding, and they will put a 6'x4' porch  roof over the front doorway.
Mr. Burriss wondered whether the garage might have less impact if the slope of the garage faced the other way, but this might not work with the gable.  The applicant said he wanted more curb appeal than for just a straight roof.
Mr. Burriss then suggested putting a vent or louver in the gable instead of having a solid siding, to break it up.  Mr. Betts said this is possible on both ends.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-073 WITH THE STIPULATION OF PUTTING A VENT IN AT LEAST THE FRONT SIDE.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Sara Lee, 124 South Cherry Street - fence

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to remove the chain link and lattice in the rear and replace it with a 42" wooden picket fence on the lot line.  Ms. Lee spoke to the neighbor and she had no objections.

     MR. BURRISS  MOVED TO APPROVE 04-074 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE FENCE BE PAINTED WHITE AFTER INSTALLATION.   MR. RIFFLE  SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Rose Echeandia, 121 South Prospect Street - Sign

 The applicant wishes to add a hanging white and burgundy plywood sign in front of her shop, Flowers-n-Things, which meets all requirements. 

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Rose Echeandia, 121 South Prospect Street - Sidewalk Sign

 The applicant also wishes to set up a sidewalk sign on the corner of Broadway and Prospect.  Mr. Strayer told her off-site signs are not allowed.
 Mr. Parriss did not want to set precedents for off-site sidewalk signs, and Mr. Burriss added that GPC did not approve such a sign for Pippin Hill. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY DENIED.

Rose Echeandia, 121 South Prospect Street - Wall sign

 The same applicant wishes a wall sign saying OPEN on the door of the store.  The sign would be 3 sq.ft. and burgundy and white. She also wishes a window sign listing all businesses in the shop in the rear.  Mr. Strayer said the code only allows one wall sign, but this would be on the back.  However, the "OPEN" signs are considered an incidental sign and therefore is not counted in the number.  Therefore she would not require a variance..

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-079 WITH THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR GRAPHICS AND COLOR.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Steve Fowler, 128 S. Cherry Street - fence

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to add a wooden picket fence around front and side of property. 
 Mr. Fowler said he could use either vinyl or wood, but probably would go with wood. 
 Mr. Burriss noted that the porch is such a predominant, beautiful feature that he wondered about the transition of the porch and beginning of the fence on NE corner.  He wants to protect the columns. Mr. Fowler was wondering about that too and thought he could move it over a foot and wrap around, although it would be more difficult to maintain.  He is already on the lot line.   Mr. Burriss wants to look at the fence next door, and Mr. Fowler said their wrought iron fence is lower than his will be.
 Mr. Parris thought the post needs to tuck under the porch and not have finial and cap.
 Mr. Fowler said he is coming from a 2½ acre property in the woods to this, so he is trying to provide safety and taste.
 Mr. Burriss asked about running the gate straight across and wondered about paint color.  Mr. Fowler assured him that when the house is painted, the fence will be also.  He was not sure of final design of fence.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 04-083 WITH TH CONDITION THAT THE FINAL DESIGN FOR FENCE BE BROUGHT IN TO MR. STRAYER FOR FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR.RIFFLE MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR 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 JUNE 11, 2004.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:   8:10 p.m.
Next Meetings:  June 28 AND July 12

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Planning Minutes 5/24/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 24, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Jackie O'Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle,
Carl Wilkenfeld 
Members Absent: none
Visitors Present:  Richard Burns, Debbra Hannahs
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  none

Minutes of May 10, 2004:   Page 2, Change J (2) at bottom of page to read:  "Does the definition Mr. Strayer provided us of a minor collector include traffic volume?  All in favor of finding that this answer and its source are valid?
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Binford Electric, 484 South Main Street - Lighting

  Mr. Strayer said this is a continuation of the saga of the ATM lighting.  They are asking for two pole lights and two ATM lights, down from the original four requested.  He is also proposing using more architecturally significant poles than originally.

 Mr. Burns described where the two pole lights would be located.  There will be two 250-watt sconce lights on the north and south and they will remove the existing lights.  Lights under the canopy will stay and over the door also.  The two 12' pole lights will be 175 watts each.
 When Mr. Wilkenfeld expressed concern about two poles, Mr. Burns said they are trying to downsize the poles and still get the required amount of light.
 Mr. Burriss suggested trying the sconces for design and style.  They will allow more light to spread than the current lights.  He asked about color of the poles and was told they would be Granville Green.  Mr. Burriss wants to see the bollards painted a matching color.  He would be willing to go with two lights and one pole in the rear to try it out.  He asked to see the last working drawing from the IGA plans for the parking lot.  There was a centralized alley with lights
 Mr. Parris thought the back lighting is fine but sees no need for the other pole.  Lights from the IGA and gas station are sufficient, and they only place lights are needed are in back. 
 Mr. Riffle suggested one light with a higher wattage, and Mr. Burns asked for 250 watts.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested changing the lights on the building first and revisiting the back section if more lighting is needed.
 Mr. Burriss asked about the other signage being the same color as the lamps, i.e., the sign reading "enter."  We would probably push for landscaping also.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-064 AS FOLLOWS:  (1) REPLACE THE TWO WALPAKS WITH TWO SCONCES AS SHOWN IN THE DIAGRAM TONIGHT; (2) ONE 12' 250-WATT POLE LIGHT LOCATED IN BACK CENTERED ON THE GREENSPACE; (3) STRONGLY SUGGEST LANDSCAPING AROUND POLE AND BOLLARDS; (4) MATCH GRANVILLE GREEN ON POLE, "ENTER HERE" SIGN, AND BOLLARDS.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Home Pleasures, 120 East Broadway - Awning sign

 The store will move into the spot formerly rented by St. Germain.  The sign on the drop of the awning will be replaced by a gold "Home Pleasures" sign with no logo.
 
     MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-069 AS PRESENTED.   MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPPROVE 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 MAY 17, 2004.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Resolution:  Consensus of the group approved the Resolution of Appreciation for Richard Salvage.

Officers:  Mr. Parris noted that since we do not have a Vice Chair to fill Richard Salvage's position, we will wait until the next meeting if we have a replacement by then.  Mr. Wilkenfeld volunteered to fill in as Vice Chair until a new one is selected.

Adjournment:   8:25 p.m.
Next Meetings:  June 14 and 28

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Planning Minutes 5/10/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Jackie O'Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle
Richard Salvage (Vice Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld 
Members Absent: none
Citizens Present:   Catherine Cunningham, Joan and Gil Krone, Kathryn and Jim Jung, Carol Whitt, Art Chonko, John Noblick, Jay Callander, Mike Frazier, Ruth Owen, Jim Smith
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner, Jim Gorey, Law Director
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Citizens Comments:  There was discussion as to whether citizens here because of the Milner Road application were to be allowed to speak.   If not, they could speak now.  The Law Director said this is not a hearing, rather, an opportunity to look at the finding of fact for the earlier decision and to answer 5 questions from Village Council {VC}.  If additional testimony is offered, the hearing would have to be reopened.  Any new evidence can only directly refer to these 5 questions.
 Mr. Salvage thought the information in our packets from the two sides tells us where each party stands.  Mr. Parris did not know what new could be brought into the mix.  Mr. Burriss has not had time to read the material, and he will concur with consensus.  Mr. Riffle feels we should consider the 5 questions VC presented to us.   The Chair wanted to give each party 5-7 minutes to state any information and consensus agreed.

Minutes of April 26, 2004:   MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Genesis Land Development, Milner Road - Lot Split

The application is for a lot split and curb cuts for a 52-acre property at Milner and Jones Roads. The original application called for 7 curb cuts and it was modified to 5 cuts.  The land is in the Township and the road is in the Village.
VC has remanded back to GPC their decision concerning the lot split as a result of Gil Krone's appeal of the decision.  VC asked GPC to consider 5 questions relating to the road. 
 Gil Krone wanted to bring to the Commission the objections he made at the last meeting.  Some evidence is heresay that the Village Planner has referred to  the engineer, so Mr. Krone feels he has the right to cross-examine those people and his objection should be ruled upon at some point.  In response to each of the 5 questions;
 (1) he specifically questioned the definition of a minor collector.  The definition must take into consideration those roads feeding into Milner, such as Jones and Sharon Valley as well as the houses at the Village on Deer Creek.  We can rule out the definition of a local road as referenced in the Master Plan. The Village Engineer said Milner was a collector road.  A local road takes traffic from residences abutting Milner. That ruling, given the traffic coming from a major collector onto Jones, says we are not dealing with a local road, but a collector. 
 (2) A volume published by ASHTTO says that volume of traffic needs a certain number of lanes and speed limits, etc. 
 (3) Milner is a collector road.
 (4) Licking County regulations certainly do apply because the developer has relied on those regulations.  He needs to incorporate the one significant portion, which is the space of driveways on both sides.
 (5) If we had an access management plan, we would be obligated to follow it, but we don't.  We have to refer to the south side, as safety affects both sides of the road.  We should refer to the Access Management Plan of the State of Ohio, which is to eliminate driveway accidents.
 Atty. Catherine Cunningham spoke for the applicant and made reference to the report previously distributed.  The only regulations that apply are under the village's subdivision general design standards.  It says traffic safety measures shall be required by GPC within recommendations of the Engineer.  There are no obvious criteria.  The Village has not adopted a thoroughfare plan or access management plan.  They hired a traffic engineer and tried to establish driveway cuts.  Both the Village Planner and the Engineer say its safe, and no other objective criteria exist.  In looking at VC's 5 questions:

(1) The Village does not have a definition of minor collector road.  It is not a design
standard.
(2) You don't have to consider traffic volume.
(3)  It is not a minor collector, it's a local road.
(4) The Village is not obligated to adhere to Licking County regulations.
(5) Whether the Village should consider both sides of the road is not specified in the ordinances.  Look at safety and visibility; they do consider both sides of the road.  County regulations do not apply.
 
 It is the applicant's position that the questions asked by VC are not appropriate.  You got it right the first time even if it was not what you wanted to do.  You should grant Genesis 5 curbcuts.
 Mr. Parris asked where Mr. Strayer got his data and was told from Access Ohio from the Ohio Department of Transportation. There was a statewide study done and those were general answers.  For #3 and #4 he spoke with Tim Lolo, County Engineer, and he said it's inside the village so the county has no say in what kind of road it is. It falls under 'local road.'  For #5 he was simply going back to the original plan.  We do not have an access standards plan.  The studies turned in by the applicant takes into consideration both sides of the road because it is a site distance study and traffic needs to be considered on both sides.  The Village Engineer also considered this.
 Mr. Salvage does not think we are prepared to define a minor road or other roads when we apply them to a particular application.  If they want us to make recommendations as to standards, that is fine, but not on a remand of an application.  He wants to return this to VC without an answer to #1.
 Mr. Parris said we have already done that.  We reviewed that information based on the code and made the original definition.
 The Law Director said there is no definition in our code for a minor collector.  Their request therefore must be a general generic definition, and he finds the first response in Mr. Strayer's review to be correct and appropriate and he thinks GPC should adopt that.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld has been through this with his own business.  When local codes do not speak to an issue, the law to look at is the Ohio Revised code. The Law Director said usually that's correct, but this refers to issues of Granville.  The state is not really relevant.  A general traffic engineer's definition of a collector road is appropriate.  VC is asking whether these 5 questions would constitute a safety hazard.  You have to rely on general case law.  There is an objective standard on curb cuts and addresses safety. It does not matter whether it's in the township or in the village.  He requested the GPC to address these 5 questions and consider traffic safety

(1) Everyone agreed with Mr. Strayer's definition and that it was A definition, but not THE definition.
(2) Does the definition Mr. Strayer provided us of a minor collector include traffic volume? All in favor of finding that this answer and its source are valid? The vote was 4 Ayes and 1 Nay (Mr. Wilkenfeld)
(3) Is Milner a minor collector?  A vote on whether we agree with Mr. Strayer's statement was 4 Ayes and 1 Nay (Mr. Wilkenfeld)
(4) Should the village adhere to L.C. regulations?  The vote was 5 nays.
(5) Should both sides of the road be considered?  Site distances do consider both sides.  The vote was 5 ayes.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT WE FIND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE CODE THAT WOULD SUGGGEST THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR PREVIOUS DECISION, AND WE THEREFORE REAFFIRM OUR PREVIOUS DECISION.    MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Gorey clarified. Can we make a specific finding that we don't think there is a traffic hazard.  GPC's previous decision is vacated and you can't reaffirm that.  Mr. Parris noted that safety was considered in Question #5.

 MR. SALVAGE WITHDREW HIS MOTION.

 MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE THAT WOULD CAUSE THE GPC TO CHANGE ANYTHING WE DID IN OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.  BECAUSE OF THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS MODIFIED. 

 MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT WE FIND THAT ALL SAFETY ISSUES WERE PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED AND DOCUMENTED, AND THERE IS NO SAFETY ISSUE FOR US TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT, AND HE MADE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT.  THIS IS THE FINDING OF FACT AS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A SAFETY ISSUE.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE VOTE WAS 4 AYES AND 1 NAY (Mr. Wilkenfeld).

 FOR THE MOTION ON THE APPLICATION, THERE WERE 4 AYES AND 1 NAY (Mr. Wilkenfeld).

MR. SALVAGE RESIGNED FROM GPC. Mr. Parris realized he has to go and appreciates all the notice he gave to us.

Susan and Daniel Schmidt, 225 South Prospect Street - additional curb cut
 The application was withdrawn. 

New Business:
Denison University - New Residential Buildings

 Art Chonko from Denison explained exactly where the two double dorms would be located, between Sigma Chi and Sunset.  They will begin in June and complete the work in the fall of 2005.  There will be brick colored stone on the hillside.  There will be handicapped accessible rooms on the first floor. 
 Mr. Strayer explained that several parking spaces were waived by Staff  for space limitations.  Mr. Chonko said there will be a driveway to the parking lot.
 Mr. Burriss wanted to see a complete landscaping plans, and it will be forthcoming.
 Mr. Riffle said that when plans are final, any changes will be approved by the Village Planner.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-051 FOR NEW RESIDENCE HALLS WITH FINAL PLANS TO BE LOOKED AT BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND JACK BURRISS.  LANDSCAPING PLAN WILL COME BACK TO GPC FOR REVIEW AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Denison University - Signs

 Denison wishes to install generic looking directional and informational signs, and when their need arises to erect these signs, they will come back to us.
 Mr. Chonko said that with all the changes on campus they are redoing all signs and need approval for bronze plaques to identify the east gate. New street signs have already been installed. These signs are only visible on campus and at Bancroft House.   In answer to a question, he described the 5' posts as black steel with baked-on semi-gloss finish.  The construction signs have been removed.
 
     MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 05-052 WITH THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO BRING IN A SAMPLE OF THE POSTS FOR APPROVAL.   MR. WILKENFELD  SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Callander Cleaners, 474 South Main Street - Signs

 Mr. Strayer said the application is for 4 temporary signs already put up.  The business has moved from Prospect Street to the space shared with Boxes and Bows.  Mr. Callander is making new signs and will return to GPC for them in a couple of months.  The sidewalk sign would require a variance.  The signs are:

 (1) Projecting Sign to be combined with the Boxes and Bows sign and repainted
 (2) Window sign
 (3) Window sign at the Video Store
(4) Southwest freestanding sandwich board which needs a variance, even though it's temporary
(5) He is also working on a sign tag for the big sign at the entrance, which may not need approval

 The applicant was reminded to take the sandwich board sign in at closing times.  Mr. Parris 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.  The store is in the rear with limited visibility.  
 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 tenants in the complex have signs.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant does not have full control over the signs for the building.
D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.  We could limit that sign to 2-3 months with option to return for more time.
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. 

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT WE APPROVE VARIANCE FOR THE MOVEABLE SIGN FOR THREE MONTHS, CITING Ch. 1147.04, SPECIFICALLY No. A BECAUSE IT IS LOCATED BEHIND THE BUILDING AND CANNOT BE SEEN FROM THE FRONT AND No. C BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE FULL CONTROL OVER SIGNS FOR THE BUILDING.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RESULT FROM ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT BUT FROM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-056 FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS AS PRESENTED FOR A TIMEFRAME OF ONE YEAR MAXIMUM WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE MOVEABLE SIGN.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Public Library - Demolition

 The applicants plan to remove the kitchen and portico to enable the Sinnett House to fit on the Pyle lot. 
 Ruth Owen explained that they worked hard and long to try to keep the doctor's office and it will remain.  They have agreed with all codes to be sure that the width of the driveway was acceptable.  The BZBA approved the side yard setback variance.   Mike Frazier added that the architect will attend the meeting of the Board on Wednesday and we will have most of the project designed.  They would like to do the work within 30 days.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE VILLAGE MANAGER THE DEMOLITION OF THE KITCHEN AND FRONT PORTICO.  

Granville Public Library - Relocation

 The Library Board wishes to move the Sinnett House to the former Pyle lot at 122 South Prospect Street

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 04-059 FOR RELOCATION OF SINNETT HOUSE.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Carol Whitt, 139 West Maple Street - Storage Shed

 The applicant wishes to erect a 10x10x12  storage shed in the rear of her yard the same color as the house.  The house is owned by Linda S. Cole. 

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-060 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jim Jung, 221 West Broadway - Addition

 The proposed second-story addition will be over a previously added rear portion of the house.  John Noblick stated that they will remove the deteriorated slate roof on the two-story portion of the house and reconstruct and install new shingle roof on house and front porch.
 Mr. Burriss asked whether the new addition will resemble the house and was told by Mr. Noblick that some of the windows will have grills and they will remove the solar collectors.  Clapboards will be white, and a couple of windows will be moved a little bit.
 Mr. Burriss noted the new shingle roof material is more consistent with what was originally there.  Slate was not original.  With the addition, the view will be improved historically because it will no longer look like a two-story ranch.
 Mr. Parris asked about the pitch, and Mr. Noblick said they will probably put in ice guards.  It has shingles now.   They will remove the white paint on the bricks and clean and regrout and seal them.  The rafters will be retained.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 04-062 FOR A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION  AS SUBMITTED.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND A,B,C,D,E,F,G 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 7, 2004.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:  Granville Christian Academy- sign

 The school is requesting a sign with logo on the awning to make people aware that the building to the east is for the academy. Mr. Strayer said 4 sq.ft. identification signs are permitted,  with only the name and address.   Under PUD a wall sign is not permitted.  What else can they do?  The representative said they want to differentiate the academy from the Welsh Hills School.  The administrator requests a crest.
 Mr. Parris said we had to grant variances to grant the monument sign since under PUD it was not allowed.  The only reason they were allowed is that other institutions enjoyed some of those features and since it was institutional, it was OK.  You have the right to apply for anything you want.
 Mr. Burriss would be willing to look at something similar to what Denison proposed for some of their street signs, like a free-standing sign with a bracket.  This would be preferable to another monument sign.  He would also appreciate appropriate landscaping around the pole.  The buildings are large and flat and a sign would relieve that.  He would discourage the applicant from a changeable sign, but he likes the idea of a crest.
 Mr. Riffle would like to see it either in the island or to the front of the building.

Adjournment:   9:30 p.m.
Next Meetings:   24 and June 14

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Planning Minutes 4/26/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 26, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Jackie O'Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle
Richard Salvage (Vice Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld 
Members Absent: none
Citizens Present:  Phil Watts, David & Susan Schmidt, Greg Moore
Also Present:  Joe Hickman, Village Manager
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  None

Minutes of April 12, 2004:  Page 2, second motion, change to "…to recommend to Village Manager to approve demolition…."

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

       New Business:

Granville Mill, 400 South Main Street  - Addition

 The application is to expand the building 40' toward Main Street.  It will be 38' from ROW.  BZBA approved a variance for front yard setback, but GPC members were confused as to exactly what they had specified for the size of the new entrance. 
 Phil Watts provided sample photographs and said there would be landscaping in front of the building, and parking would be on the side only.  It will be up about 2 concrete blocks to get it above flood level.  He showed the group color samples of overhang and siding and where the new addition will go. 
 Mr. Salvage suggested that a decision should be subject to deciding exactly what BZBA specified.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld would like to see a site plan of the entire area, showing how this addition will look from the road, but Mr. Salvage felt this was beyond our scope of responsibility and that we should act only on what is before us tonight.
 Mr. Burriss also wanted to see the side elevation.  Mr. Watts said the building has a fairly steep pitched roof.  The overhang will extend across the existing building and be the new façade.  He said they could change the depth of the overhang.   Mr. Burriss asked whether merchandise would be stored outside, and Mr. Watts said even if they do not, there will still be the overhang.
 Mr. Burriss asked for screening as part of the landscape planning.  When they put in the Thrift Shop they installed a wall as buffer for parking, and he thinks we need to be consistent.
 Mr. Riffle asked what is between the front porch and the sidewalk and the answer was grass or green space.
 Mr. Burriss asked whether there would be glass doors and the answer was Yes, one set of doors maybe with a panel. Windows are double hung casement, two on each side. It will look like it does now.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked whether they were taking out the asphalt and the answer was Yes.
 Mr. Burriss said it seems like one of the primary entrances would be on the north, and Mr. Watts might want to think of coordinating parking and entrance way.  Mr. Watts will add concrete blocks to the parking slots.
  Mr. Riffle thought sidewalks would be a good idea and was told that would not be a problem.
 Mr. Parris said we could act on what's before us and ask the applicant to return for final details on the door, parking, signage, pedestrian access, sidewalks, outdoor merchandise storage and BZBA specifications.  Mr. Watts thought they would want a sign similar to the one at Granville Lumber and some lighting under the canopy.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-045 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:  (1) ANY CONFLICTS WITH THE SITE PLAN PRESENTED AND THE BZBA APPROVAL HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT  BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE VILLAGE PLANNER; (2) THERE WILL NEED TO BE LANDSCAPING, SCREENING, PARKING PLANS; (3) FINAL DESIGN OF THE SINGLE DOOR WILL BE APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND MR. BURRIS; (4) SIDE ELEVATIONS WILL MATCH CURRENT ELEVATIONS; (5) FINAL DETAILS FOR LANDSCAPING, OUTDOOR SALES, LIGHTING, SIDEWALKS, AND ACCESS WILL HAVE TO BE APPROVED AT A LATER DATE.    MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Susan and Daniel Schmidt, 225 South Prospect Street - additional curb cut
 The applicants wish to create another driveway to the north to add more parking in addition to that provided by the shared driveway.
 Mr. Schmidt said there is a lot of street parking and they want more space for their own cars, and he showed where it would go.  They already have space for two cars, but the second is jammed right against the first and against a wall.  The shared garage is old and too small for two cars. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether they could have a parking permit, and Mr. Hickman said permits are only for handicapped parking. Mr. Wilkenfeld would rather see the extra parking in the rear rather than add another curb cut.
 Mr. Parris said two curb cuts are is not normally allowed and would like to have seen a picture of the parking areas and Mr. Schmidt sketched a picture.  Although the code does not specifically  preclude two curb cuts, Mr. Paris had looked for examples of this kind of application and found one with a circular drive in front. The Heisey House has a pair of concrete lanes, which are less intrusive than a concrete drive.   
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said this is in the historical district so that's why he would recommend a 'reserved' space with towing in front.
 Once we open Pandora's Box, said Mr. Parris, it's going to be hard to close it again.
 Mrs. Schmidt said there is a magnolia tree in poor shape that would have to come down.
 Ms. O'Keefe noted that they already have two driveways.  Technically it's a double sized drive, added Mr. Parris.  The property line goes down the center of the driveway.
 Mr. Parris noted we are willing to help the applicants out but he would like to look around some more.  We need to talk to Mr. Strayer and review the code.  Parking is at a premium to begin with, and if we grant you this second access, we would have to grant it to anybody.
 Mr. Burriss added that a curb cut would eliminate one on-street parking place.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld would like to look more closely about how the design would look.
 
    MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE, WITH APPLICANTS' APPROVAL, APPLICATION 04-046 PENDING FURTHER REVIEW.   MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

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

 Greg Moore, representative from the church, said the 18 sq.ft. sign is a temporary promotional/construction-type sign but with no contractors' names.  As you enter the main driveway, it will probably be on the west side at the proper setback off the ROW.  It will be up from now until December during the construction period.  It's a little too big to fit within the code, and Mr. Salvage asked whether they could reduce it to 15 sq.ft, and Mr. Moore said Yes, but they want to make the 6 photos as large as possible.  Mr. Salvage suggested removing the word "new" since they are all new. 
 The "Shine On" words would have yellow color, and the photos are black and white with black printing.

     MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE O4-047 WITH THE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATION:  DOWNSIZE TO 16 SQ.FT.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Sharon & Wayne Young (Stephen Fowler, purchaser), 117 South Pearl Street - Demolition

 Mr. Fowler wishes to purchase the home and wants approval for removing the one-story wood frame structure attached to the south side. The exposed wall has a door and two double-hung windows, which are still in the house. This is not original and of limited historical value.  There are two curb cuts and he would waive the second one and plant with grass and landscaping and a picket fence.  The boundaries have changed, and when they moved the lot line, they moved the garage.  The house is pretty much on the lot line, and Mr. Fowler wants to reestablish the original lot line.   
 Mr. Burriss would like to see detail on the steps, and Mr. Fowler said they would be replaced several months after the demolition. 

     MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO VILLAGE MANAGER THAT THIS BE APPROVED.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A, 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 APRIL 23, 2004.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

  
 Adjournment:   8:30 p.m.
Next Meetings:  May 10 and 24

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Planning Minutes 4/12/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 12, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Jackie O'Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle
Richard Salvage (Vice Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld 
Members Absent: none
Citizens Present: Robert Hutchison, Shari Joseph, Laura Joseph, Andrew and Kaarina Sterrett, Ruth E. Owen, Mike Frazier, Amy Myers-Payne, Pat & Ron Winters, Ned Roberts, Ann L. Watson, David Agosta, Mr. Binford
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  None

Minutes of March 8, 2004: 

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

       Old Business:

David Agosta, 410 East Broadway - Addition

 Mr. Strayer said they wish to put an addition to the rear of the house and extend the kitchen and family room.  The house is close to the school, and this would be closer by 2" or so. He will remove a section of the existing structure.  Materials will match existing house.  Mr. Strayer waived the necessity for a variance.
 Mr. Parris asked what is coming off and the representative said the roofline over the three windows is coming off.  They are stripping off the porch back to where it is two stories.  The deck will stay for now but will be removed later along with the hot tub.  Mr. Agosta added that there are no plans for a new deck. 
 Mr. Parris asked whether the shape of the roofline will be a pitched roof going in the opposite direction from the current one and was told Yes.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-023 AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Rose Echeandia, 121 South Prospect Street - Change of Use

  Mr. Strayer said the change is from the previous beauty shop storage area upstairs to a gift shop for flowers and such.  He gave administrative approval because our last meeting was canceled because of lack of quorum, and she wanted to get started.  Since there were  no issues of concern by the members present, they authorized Mr. Strayer to approve it.  This is merely a formality.
  
    MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-028 FOR CHANGE OF USE AS PRESENTED.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 The applicant will return later for her already-installed sign.

   New Business:

    Amy Myers-Payne, 130 North Prospect Street, Change of Use

  Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to change the use from a dry cleaner's to a children's art studio.  No structural changes or remodeling is required.
  Ms. Myers-Payne said she is interested in starting a creative arts center for children, 2-18, primarily set up for painting and clay, with no kilns or hazardous materials.  She wants to open May 1, and she will be setting it up as a non-profit business.
  Mr. Strayer said he did not know that and it changes things.  It will have to change from 1159.02.A.2.G, Service, Recreational Business, to 1159.02.A.2.F.  It is still a permitted use.
  Mr. Parris noted that it is not a bad idea to discuss all of her signage with Mr. Strayer before submitting a sign application.

     MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE O4-028 WITH THE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATION:  TO CHANGE TO 1159.02.a.2.f , THAT BEING A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, RATHER THAN LETTER G.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Granville Public Library, 122 South Prospect Street, Rezoning

 Mr. Strayer said the Library wishes to rezone from VRD to VBD in order to allow the historically significant Sinnett House, which will be moved onto the lot, to have office space for organizations.  If it is rezoned, it could also be used for a residence, as a conditional use.  The library would use the Sinnett House as a non-profit center, but they would also like to be able to rent office space in the house.  They received a variance from BZBA for side yard offset last week.
 Mr. Parris said a year ago GPC denied a demolition of the Pyle house, but at that time there was no specified use for the vacant lot.   
  In answer to a question by Mr. Wilkenfeld, Ruth Owen, from the Library Board, felt there were no restrictions on the rezoning.  The library would have the right to sell the property at a later date.  Part of the property will be a driveway going to the library, and a future purchaser would need to get a lot split.  The library needs a wide driveway to accommodate fire trucks.  Ms. Owen said at one time the library wanted to gift the Sinnett House to the library, but funds were not forthcoming.  

     MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO VILLAGE MANAGER TO APPROVE DEMOLITION.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

   Granville Public Library, 122 South Prospect Street - Demolition

  The library requests a permit to raze the Pyle House in preparation for a move of the Sinnett House to that lot.  They researched the Pyle house and found it was built between 1914 and 1920 and has no outstanding historical features.
  Mr. Wilkenfeld thought moving the Sinnett House was a good idea.

 MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT GPC RECOMMEND TO VILLAGE COUNCIL DEMOLITION OF THE HOUSE.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
 Sharon Joseph, 115 North Prospect Street - Reconstruction 

  Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to renovate the dilapidated rear entry to the second floor with a more attractive structure.  The roofline will match other buildings in the block.  The applicant wishes to enlarge the second-floor deck to accommodate a more compact stairwell.  She will remove existing stairs and add fencing and entry gate on ground floor to prevent illegal dumping.
  Sharon Joseph said part of the concern is that she has had to deal with illegal dumping of tires, etc., which she has to remove.  The existing steps  come directly to the curb and it's hard to get onto the lowest step.  She hopes to convert this into a professional office and feels that the improvement will be 1000 per cent better than it is and will enhance the former Petunia Park
  Mr. Wilkenfeld asked about the colors, and Ms. Joseph showed a color sample for deck and railing.  Vinyl siding will be extended and cleaned up.
  Mr. Riffle asked whether the antenna would disappear and was told Yes.
  Mr. Parris asked will the upper story project and was told Yes, the lower story is backset with the line of the building.  The deck will extend over that slightly.
  Mr. Salvage asked about the roofline, and she stated she wants to do what is similar to Broadway.  Most of them have a project6ion and a little overhang.  Hers won't be that ornate, but she wants to clean it up. She will work with the builder to see how to do that.  Maybe she will add an awning later.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 04-037 AS PRESENTED.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Kaaarina Sterrett, 222 North Granger Street - fencing

  Mr. Strayer said last year the alley on Sunrise was vacated and the land given to the neighbors.  Now the applicant wishes to move the existing fence to the new rear lot line.  We are missing a survey showing where the new lot line is.
  Andy Sterrett said he has spoken to Scott Harmon and he agreed to send the survey to us.  They are moving the fence about 6'.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-040 AS PRESENTED PENDING RECEIPT OF SURVEY.  MR. BURISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Ann Watson, 127 West Maple Street - fence

  Mr. Strayer said the proposed new 8' wood plank privacy fence construction on the west property line lies on the edge of a significant drop off in grade and the applicant wishes to block it off.
  Ms. Watson showed on the photograph where the fence will go.  It will be in two panels and located so that the neighbor can have access to her yard.  The front side of the fence will face the neighbor and will connect to the old fence.  The new  cedartone fence will match the existing fence.  The old fence is treated and has never been painted.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 04-041 AS PRESENTED. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Lisa Morrisette, 214 iorth Pearl Street - Replace door

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wants to remove the patio door and screen and replace with double patio door.
 Ned Roberts, Builder, said it will have an 8' Anderson Patio door with screen panel and 2 glass panels to replace the existing door.  
 Mr. Parris asked whether there would be mullions, and  Mr. Roberts was not sure, but the windows have mullions.
 Mr. Burriss said we would be more comfortable with the Colonial Mullions rather than arts and crafts style.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-442 AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ron Winters, 343 East College Street - Roof

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to replace the 100-year-old slate roof with shingles.  The sample provided resembles slate. 
 Ron Winters thought a metal low standing seam roof would be put over the porch, rather than shingles, and Jerry McLain is looking into this.
 Mr. Parris felt that since this is on a very slight slope, metal would shed the rain better than shingles, and Mr. Riffle agreed.  We could give the option of using either one. Mr. Winters preferred metal if it will work.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF 04-043 UNDER THE CONDITION THAT  (1) THE APPLICANT HAS THE OPTION OF USING STANDING SEAM OVER THE PORCH.  WE ARE NOT APPROVING A SHINGLE ROOF ON THE PORCH.  (2) COLOR IS TO BE COLONIAL SLATE.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Chuck Whitman, 138 East Broadway - Café furniture

 The application is for approval of the style of furniture for 6 tables and 12 chairs at the outdoor café at Whitt's. They have already received approval from Village Council for the outdoor taables.  The color and style is to be as in the photograph provided.
 Mr. Burriss asked whether the tables would accommodate an umbrella and was told, No, but there may be free-standing umbrellas.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked whether people could put two tables together and was told Yes.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE TABLES AND CHAIRS AS IN THE PICTURE PROVIDED WITH FINAL UMBRELLA COLORS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Business: 

BankOne, Binford Electric, 484 South Main Street - Lighting

 Mr. Binford said the bank wants to know what type of lighting should be considered.  The applicant discussed foot candle distances and lighting already in place.  He said the wallpaks could be removed if GPC wished.  They wish to light up the area within 50' of the ATM.
 Mr. Parris thought there was a lot of lighting there already, and Mr. Binford said lighting is concentrated there and they want 250-watt wallpaks.  There are two there now, one in front and one in back.  Mr. Parris thought if they wanted to light the area, they should put in pole lights on the road side and in the back. Instead of 400 watts, 175 would be better.  He said BankOne can apply for anything they want, but he would be happier with two poles and softening the wallpaks.  "There is enough light there to remove paint from a car."  Concerning the appearance of the structure, adding more light would be "like putting lipstick on a pig."  Mr. Burris suggested putting earrings on the pig.
 Mr. Riffle wanted to see a site plan.
 Mr. Burriss thought if they could get rid of the homely wallpaks on the building and put up a wall-mounted post light, that would be better.  Maybe sconces could be added and complementary post lights within the site. 
 Mr. Binford said he would take the suggestion back for two post lights, eliminate the 2 wallpaks, and keep a light under the canopy.  Mr. Parris would go to 4 lights if they removed 2 from the building. 
 Mr. Parris said the only dark spot is behind the ATM.  There is already a lot of light in the parking area.  He suggested the applicant look at other lighting around town.

Genesis Land Development (Gil Krone's Appeal)    Village Council wants us to look at the road classification by Licking County Planning Commission ands whether it is relevant.  Mr. Strayer talked to Tim Lolo and if it is a minor collector, they do not have any regulations.  Milner Road is unclassified.  Mr. Parris had asked the Law Director what should we consider the road, and he said consider it as it stands today as a local road.  Knowing what the question is, He thinks Mr. Strayer should get an opinion in writing from the Law Director in our packets before we vote at the next meeting. 

Finding of Fact:  MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS  AND A,B,C,DE,F,G,H, AND I UNDER OLD BUSINESS AS WELL AS THE FINDING OF FACT FOR RECOMMENDATIONS TO VILLAGE COUNCIL AND TO VILLAGE MANAGER UNDER B AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Library) AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF APRIL 9, 2004.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

  
  Adjournment: 8:40 p.m.
Next Meetings:     April 26 (Mr. Strayer absent) and May 10

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Planning Minutes 3/8/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 8, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Jackie O’Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle  Members Absent: Richard Salvage (Vice Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld   Citizens Present: Catherine Cunningham, Brian  Arnold
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak. Citizens Comments:  None
 Minutes of February 23, 2004: 
 Page 2:  Line 9, …”when it is completed, The overall appearance will look really big.”
 Page 2nd paragraph up:  “…extensive testimony from the applicant and citizens who were objecting to the curb cuts. . . . from our own staff….
 Page 3:  right before the motion:  “Mr. Gorry said this is not a public hearing….”

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Other Business:

Meeting Dates

 Mr. Strayer provided a revised list of GPC meeting dates and said he cannot be present on April 26. Mr. Parris suggested that Joe Hickman lead the meeting, and if he cannot, maybe the meeting can be cancelled. 
 October 11 is Columbus Day, and members thought they could all meet on October 13.  
 
Gil Krone’s Appeal  of our Genesis decision will be at Village Council on March 17th.

 Arby’s

  Mr. Strayer is collecting photos from other Arby’s sites.  Members agreed that the architectural design should be such that if Arby’s closed down, anyone else could move into it. 
  Catherine Cunningham and Brian Arnold provided revised site drawings for the building and explained the revisions they made. They dropped the false windows and cut down the length of the building.  They added a different tone of brick, lighter at the top and darker at the bottom and added a  slate roof instead of standing seam.  On the front they cut down the massing and added lighting to top of awnings.  A stripe was added.  The A.C. units will not be visible on the roof.
  Mr. Parris’s concern is not the color of the brick, rather the front element above the door, which does not fit our zoning code or any of our architecture in town.  He noted that this style is a “deal killer.”
  Ms. Cunningham asked whether it was the shape and pitch and was told No, it’s the window itself.  It’s modern and Mr. Parris is not going to tell her what style they should put up, but there are several suggested styles in our code which fit our community.  She needs to be sympathetic with the architecture of the area.  The signage also must conform to our code.
  Mr. Riffle added that we are trying to avoid trade mark buildings.  Anyone else should be able to come into that building if you go, added Mr. Parris.  Signs are irrelevant.  It’s the overall character itself.  He asked her whether she had studied the code extensively, and Ms. Cunningham said No, Not extensively, but she has looked at what Arby’s can do.  This element is what Arby’s franchiser says they must have.  There are several buildings in Arby’s portfolio, and there are few like this one. She is not sure people would recognize this building as an Arby’s.   She thinks they could lower the element.
  Mr. Burriss said there are a lot of threes to it, and it could be stronger if the window could be three instead of four.  Look at Greek Revival buildings.  The central could be made less modern divided into three.  They need a more positive architectural element instead of a strong sign element.  The stripe is an improvement, but the awnings are still there.  The stripe could be smaller and move away from the red.  Look for a contrast.  He would like to see standing seam somewhere else on the building.
  Ms. Cunningham said the sign would be internally lit and was told by Mr. Burriss they are not allowed.  Mr. Parris suggested asking for specs on signage square footage.
 
  Mr. Burriss summed up the recommendations:
Striped awning
Standing seam, perhaps green, roof
Soften the design.  Look at New England style towns
Remove the element or make it round
Make your corporate presence fit in
No internally lit signs
Our goal is for our architecture to say this is “Some place,” not “Anyplace.”
Stone is not necessary on the bottom; it can continue to be brick.
  Ms. Cunningham admitted that there were other locations which they definitely wanted to be in but they could not get the franchise so they lost the area.  The officers of PRG hold the franchise, and with each new president there is a new set of rules.  At the present time we have to build this style.  She does not personally like the diamond shape, but maybe it can be made smaller.
  Mr. Riffle thought the centerpiece does not tie into the rest of the detailing on the building.  It should be done more classically.  He is not sure rounding would fit in with the rectangular shape of the building.
  Mr. Burriss asked about the dumpster and was told it is behind the building and is brick and will match the rest of the building.  The drive-through is away from the building with landscaping.   Water run-off will go down into a storm.     Glass in the building is clear protective double-pane glass, not tinted. 
  Arby’s will work on the design some more and get back to us, but Ms. Cunningham warned that they might not appreciate GPC’s comments. 

  Finding of Fact:  none
  
  Adjournment: 8:55 p.m. Next Meetings:    March 22 and April 12  Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen

Planning Minutes 2/23/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 23, 2004
Minutes




Members Present:  Melissa Hartfield, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Vice Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent:  Jack Burriss Citizens Present: Jim McInturf, Catherine Cunningham,  Ed Smith, Joan and Gil Krone, John Minsker, Andrew Guancial, Kathryn Dunlap, Jerry Martin, Mike Mead, Brian  Arnold, Breanna Schwart




Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner, Jim Gorrey, Legal Advisor
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak. Citizens Comments:  None
 Minutes of February 9, 2004: 
 Page 3:  5th line up, delete “not” before “a public street.”
 Page 4:  2d line up: delete “accesses,” and change to “control splits in township areas.”
 Page 5:  Line 1, last word should be off.
 Page 5:  6th line:  “diagonal natural gas pipeline between…”
 Page 5:  Next line:  “title searches showing such restrictions.”
 At end of paragraph starting with Mr. Salvage, add They have not requested that.”
 Page 10:  Last line, add IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 Page 13:  The motion was made by Mr. Salvage.
 
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  Old Business: Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road - Addition
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.




    Mr. Strayer said the application was tabled at the last meeting because GPC wanted to see more detail on the brick or siding.  The applicant turned in plans with pictures of the building from various locations.
 Mr. McInturf added that in the new plans they show cornerboards, shutters, and trim. 
 Mr. Parris asked whether it will be brick or vinyl siding, and Mr. McInturf said it will be vinyl and will match the building in various places.  The trim will be 4”, consistent with other parts of the church.  In bricking up the entire side, Mr. Parris feared a vista of a massive expanse of brick. 
  Mr, Wilkenfeld asked whether the new part would be recessed and was told No.
  Mr. Salvage asked about color and was told it will match.  The shutters will be fern green or deep green and there will be no shutters in the back, only on the other three sides.
 Mr. Riffle said what they have done is break up the appearance, but he still feels when it is completed, the overall appearance will look really big. Mr. McInturf noted that a lot of it won’t be visible because of the landscaping.  There are only three properties able to see the vinyl. 
Mr. Riffle suggested adding a false window on the bathroom with closed shutters, and Mr. Parris suggested windows with obscure glass.  He said the modification could be submitted to the Village Planner.
       
Mr. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-009 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THERE WILL BE 4” TRIM AROUND THE WINDOWS; (2) SHUTTERS WITH ALL WINDOWS; (3) VINYL SIDING OF A COLOR TO MATCH THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING; (4) APPLICANT WILL ADD THREE WINDOWS OR SIMULATED WINDOWS ON THE NORTH SIDE.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 
 
Genesis Land Developoment, Milner Road – Lot Split & Curb Cuts




MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 Mr. Strayer said the application was tabled following the public hearing to allow GPC to gain more information from legal staff.  The developer originally wanted 7 curb cuts on Milner but has reduced the request to 5 curb cuts for safety reasons.  Although the property lies in the Township, the road is in the Village and needs Village approval.
 Mr. Parris stated that we heard fairly extensive testimony from the applicant and citizens who were objecting to the curb cuts.  It was tabled because we did not have a good understanding from our own staff, and he asked Mr. Gorry for his input.
 Mr. Gorry said the responsibility of the Village is to approve access to its streets, and that determination is based on highway and safety issues.  Since the land in question is located in the township, the village does not have authority to determine whether the lot splits are appropriate.  That determination lies with the Licking County Planning Commission.  Although not in the Village, the property owner has an easement for a right to connect to public streets.  In fact, if a political subdivision denies that right, that constitutes a taking, for which compensation must be paid.  There is not much we can do to prohibit access to village streets, but we are required to get approval from GPC and look into the safety of making curb cuts.  The issue before the Board is to what degree can the request for curb cuts be done in a safe manner and how many should be allowed?  Lot splits are not an issue for GPC.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld’s concern is what happens if we approve access and this is not what they end up with, and Mr. Gorry said we can determine exactly where the curb cuts shall be.  If the lot split is not approved or if the county does not follow GPC recommendations, the applicant will have to return to GPC. 
 Whether Milner Road eventually becomes a collector road is not to be taken into consideration.  Look at the road as it exists today.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld reminded the group that numerous neighbors said the road as it exists is not safe for more curb cuts and wondered whether more curb cuts could be made.  Mr. Gorry said if that was testimony taken under oath, it should be considered, but you also need to consider the report from the traffic engineer.  If you have conflicting testimony, you have to resolve that.   Mr. Strayer said he does not see another way to reduce the total of 5 without an internal road.  Combining Lots 3 and 4 would require a bridge over the waterway.
 Mr. Salvage noted that the traffic engineer’s study indicates although the sight distances were adequate, the number of access points in such a short distance would not be in accordance with the Master Plan.  Reducing the total to 5 spreads out the distances more.
 Gil Krone wished to speak but was told by the Chairman that this was not a public hearing and did not recognize him.  Mr. Gorry said this is not a public hearing although it is open to the public.
 
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-010 AS MODIFIED WITH AGREEMENT OF VILLAGE STAFF FOR FIVE ACCESS POINTS RATHER THAN SEVEN AS FOLLOWS (1) LOT 3; (2) COMBINING 4 AND 5; (3) LOT 6; (4) LOT 7; (5) LOTS 8 AND 9.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY {MR. WILKENFELD voted no, based upon testimony of citizens and because he thinks there are too many curb cuts}.




Fred Abraham, 460 South Main Street – sign




 Mr. Strayer said this application is to install a window sign on south door.  The sign has already been installed on the window through a small miscommunication when the wall sign was approved at the last meeting.  Mr. Abraham thought he could put all three signs on the same approval.  This sign meets all portions of the code.  The applicant cannot be here tonight.




MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  
 
Other Business:




 Methodist Church - landscaping




 John Minsker stated that some of the landscaping approved for the parking lot has been planted.  They started to do the northeast corner and became aware that Kathryn Dunlap had a concern with the gate and fence.  They are concerned about this and want to adhere to the agreement, but they don’t want to lose a parking place.   
 Ms. Dunlap said her yard is small and there is not much room to get through
the gate with planting in place.  If they screen the trash container, it would be better.   
  Mr. Parris said if a change is made to the agreed-upon landscaping plan, they would have to return to GPC for approval. 




Jerry Martin, Brew’s, 116 E. Broadway – redevelopment
  Mr. Martin wishes to remodel the façade of the former 1st Federal building to prepare to move Brew’s into the building.  He described the changes planned:  taking the awning to the second floor, adding detail to the top, adding a balcony, and putting in a second-story enclosed staircase exit where the drive-through was.  It will project into the alley.
 Mr. Riffle asked about the brackets and the balcony.  Mr. Martin said the balcony is useable and juts out 8’. It is of molded urethane.  They will replace all windows, but only one will open.
 Mr. Riffle recommended putting the door on the front of the elevator and having the brackets the same size.
 Mr. Salvage wants to see detail on the driveway side.




Arby’s, Rt. 16 and Cherry Valley Road
  Brian Arnold showed updated drawings with neighboring buildings and said there will be curved landscaping around front.  They will add sidewalks and a mangate and landscaping to the dumpster.
  Mr. Strayer reported that Jack Burris did not think the traffic in the back was conducive to pedestrian traffic.  Maybe they could reverse the building.  He said Arby’s will get a letter of continuation to us.
  Mr. Salvage would prefer to have the building facing SA Way.  It would make it more pedestrian friendly.  And more friendly to cars too, added Mr. Parris.  You drive into the front of a building, not a rear.  Mr. Salvage thought it would make the drive-through look better to put the window on the other side.  Brian Arnold thought there would be a better traffic movement this way.  He asked if there would be a lot of pedestrian traffic, and Mr. Salvage told him not at this time, but we are trying to make the village more conducive to foot traffic.
 Mr. Riffle recommended moving the building and directing traffic around.  Flip the plans.
 
 Finding of Fact:  The group read Mr. Strayer’s Findings for Binford Electric on Broadway, and they are attached to these minutes.
    MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING FOR 04-003.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND FINDING WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
  
  MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE FINDING FOR 04-004 AND GPC FINDS THAT THE APPLICATION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH 11750.3(a) OF THE SBD LIGHTING REGULATIONS.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.




   MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A AND B UNDER OLD BUSINESS  AND A 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 FEBRUARY 20, 2004.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  Adjournment: 8:55 p.m. Next Meetings:    March 8 and March 22  Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen

Planning Minutes 2/9/04

 GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 9, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Jackie O’Keefe, Mark
Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage
(Chair),Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent:  none Citizens
Present: Joan & Gerald Jeffers, John Lemon, Jon Corbett,
Mark Clapsadle, Rick Burns, John Lancaster, Patrick
Guanciale, Andrew Guanciale, Brian Arnold, Ed Smith,
Allison Hyer, Barb and Fred Abraham, Scott Gillie, Dave
Conklin, Catherine Cunningham, Leon Habegger, William
Sewell, Gil & Joan Krone, Carl Strauss, Bea Eisenberg, Jim
McInturf
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner

New Member and Election of Officers:  Mr. Salvage welcomed
Mr. Wilkenfeld back onto the Commission and asked for
nomination of officers:
MR. SALVAGE NOMINATED MR. PARRIS TO BE CHAIRMAN.  MR.
RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. BURRISS NOMINATED MR. SALVAGE TO BE VICE CHAIRMAN.  
MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 Mr. Parris took over the Chairman’s duties and asked for
Citizens’ Comments:  Bill Sewell of Park Trails asked
whether there would be one entrance and exit onto Cherry
Valley for Arby’s and would the traffic be taken into
account, and it was Mr. Parris’s understanding that there
would be one opening, and the traffic would be considered
at the proper time.
   The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.  
Minutes of January 12, 2003:  
    Page 2:  Halfway down, change to “Mr. Salvage does
not have a problem with shoebox type lights.”
    Page 2, before the second motion, add The
applicant agreed to table the application.    
    Page 3, 7th line up, delete “but”
    Page 3, 5th line up, change “extend” to extent.
    Page 3, last paragraph, “Mr. Salvage referred to
10b and 10e on road widths.  Space is needed for utilities
at the road sides, but care is needed to protect
ecologically sensitive areas while at the same time make
streets no wider than necessary.”  

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR.
RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  New
Business:  Greg Ream, 130 East Broadway – Window Sign    
    Mr. Strayer said that MoundBuilders Real Estate
has applied for a second window sign for Lemmon &
Associates beneath the first sign.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld said a second sign falls within our
code, but there may be design questions.  Mr. Burriss
noted the existing sign is 32” and the proposed one is
37½” so there is an inconsistent top line.  Members
determined the sign falls within the code.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-007 AS
SUBMITTED.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Greg Ream, 130 East Broadway – Projecting Sign

    Mr. Strayer said the application is for a second
projecting sign.
    Mr. Parris said the code precludes two projecting
signs, so they can’t both be approved.  
    Bea Eisenberg said they will hang the new sign on
a chain beneath the existing sign and will make both signs
the same width.  The new one is white with blue letters,
double sided, and placed next to the flower box.
    
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 04-008 WITH THE CONDITION
THAT THE NEW SIGN BE HUNG ON THE SAME BRACKET AND BE THE
SAME WIDTH AS THE EXISTING SIGN.

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road –
Addition

    Mr. Strayer said the application falls within the
code.  The addition will be a two-story frame and masonry
addition with classrooms, administrative offices, rest
rooms, and multi-purpose rooms.
    Jeff McInturf, Building Committee Chairman, said
the only difference between the original application and
this one is the stairway.  They can do vinyl or brick and
would like to keep that optional because of the cost.  It
is currently brick.  They can put trim around the windows
if desired.
    Mr. Parris is concerned about the building looking
like a “patchwork quilt.”  It should be finished as it was
started.  They wanted to break up the expanse of wall with
vinyl and brick.  
    Leon Habegger said there will be shutters to
match, and all windows will match.  They will remove
exterior stairway plans in order to fit better with the
driveway.
    Mr. Burriss has concerns about material changes.  
The joint between the existing brick and proposed vinyl is
not a particularly good one.  He would like to see the
transition detail.  If it’s vinyl, some corner posts would
help.  There are no new shutters on the drawing, and we
would like to have drawings as close to what is chosen as
possible.  Viewing the complete finished drawing might
cause us to view it differently.  We would like it to have
continuity and to see trim detail.
    Mr. McInturf can appreciate that but would like
GPC to approve the drawing in brick and then if it becomes
a financial issue, leave it open to come back with samples
of trim board.
    Mr. Parris would be hesitant to do that  You could
table this and get some of the details worked out and
bring it back to us.  Or we could vote tonight.
Mr. McInturf requested tabling and returning in two weeks.
    Mr. Riffle said the applicant talked about trying
to make it look not quite so big.  If they took out the
brick and had only vinyl, it would look even bigger.  Mr.
McInturf said they wanted to make it look attractive. Mr.
Parris assumed what was presented at the work session
would be the selected plan.  

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION WITH APPROVAL OF
APPLICANT.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Genesis Land Development – lot split

    Mr. Strayer said the property is in the township
and the village.  
At first the applicant asked for access on Milner Road for
seven lots (3-9). But now they are seeking five cuts and
two shared driveways.  Our traffic engineer has analyzed
sight distances and made the recommendation that he would
want to limit the number of access points and suggested
that we ask for some shared driveways, but there are
utility restrictions.  
    Catherine Cunningham, Attorney, explained the
problem with two different jurisdictions.  Ron Beitzel,
the owner, and Mr. Strayer went out to look at the area
and along with the engineer came up with this plan.  The
applicant agrees with it.  
    Ms. O’Keefe said GPC received a letter about storm
water runoff, and Mr. Riffle wondered why there could not
be a single access onto Jones Road.  Mr. Wilkenfeld added
that the village will have to maintain Milner Road, and
perhaps an annexation should be considered.
    Mr. Parris said the deeds allow one access off
Jones Road.  In the future when Milner is expanded, it
would be up to the village to pay for redoing all the curb
cuts in an instance where the owner is fully aware of
construction  presently.  His other concern is storm water
issues on Milner that would require further improvements
by the village.
    Ms. Cunningham said part of the problem is that
Milner is in the village and the property is not, so they
have jurisdiction.  The lot split can be done as long as
it is more than 5 acres and a public street.  This is not
a regular lot split; there is not a common owner of
property.  There is no common road, and it won’t have
public utilities or service road.  This would meet those
standards.  The village is limited with road frontage.  
Milner does not have culverts and the village maintains
it. The houses will be far back off the road.  There are
houses on the south side, and what they are proposing is
consistent with the other side and what has been approved
by the village.  All safety requirements are met.  The
village has not adopted any specific standards on access
points.  It is a rural area with large lots and the
drainage issues would be the access points of driveways on
the road.  This would be part of the building inspection
process.  Runoff would have to be controlled on site.  
They are not aware of any specific drainage issues.
    Mr. Parris said for a property that did not have
access rights from Milner, they are asking us to give them
the rights, and that is a village issue and relates to
future expense.  If the village grants those rights which
you do not enjoy now, when Milner becomes improved it
would be up to the village to repave.
    Ms. Cunningham said in terms of the ability to
access the roadway, she is not aware of deed
restrictions.  The village has no rights over deed
restrictions.  The Ohio Revised Code only mentions if they
are on an existing street and over 5 acres.  
    Ms O’Keefe said this sounds like an issue for our
Law Director, and Ms. Cunningham said she has discussed
this with him, and the village has no jurisdiction.  The
village does not refer to curb cuts and has no authority.  
They are trying to come up with access points to meet
everyone’s approval.
    Mr. Strayer was not present for that conference
but has talked to the Law Director.  The village does not
have an approved access management plan, but the Master
Plan says that the area is for future growth and there
should not be more curb cuts on the controller road than
you need.  The traffic engineer recommended it as a
collector road, but we do not have an access management
plan.  He did say that the way it was proposed, it was on
the borderline and met standards for distances, but given
the terrain and average speed, it would be best if they
limited curb cuts to less than 7.  He was in agreement
with the traffic engineer.  He does not have a report from
the engineer but can get one.
    Mr. Parris asked whether staff is amenable to this
plan, and Mr. Strayer said since they do not have an
approved access management plan to govern this issue, they
have to rely on the report of the traffic engineer re
safety. The Master Plan is not completely enforceable so
they cannot refer to it.  
    Ms. O’Keefe asked shouldn’t we wait until its
complete, and Mr. Strayer said they have already applied.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld would like more definition. If it’s
something we are compelled to do, we should work to
everyone’s satisfaction and everyone should be involved.
    Ms. Cunningham said that’s why they are here.  
They believe you do not have the right to deny it.  When
they submitted the original plan, that was best for the
applicant but the village does not have standards or a
permit process.  It’s controlled by subdivision
regulations.  They are here because they want to be good
neighbors.
    Mr. Salvage had concerns:  (1) where does this
information about deed restrictions come from?  He was
told it comes from a letter.  (2) For 5 acres or larger,
the state has a law that we do not control splits in
township areas.  (3) Regarding storm drainage, these are
large houses and large lots.  It’s a small amount of
property to be developed and create storm water
questions.  Most can be controlled onto the road.  He does
not think the county has a storm water plan to apply
here.  With the way this property lies, you could probably
direct storm water to natural drainage in your building
restrictions.  The attorney agreed.
    Ron Beitzel, owner, had some responses to these
concerns:  (1) Access.  With a natural gas pipeline
easement line between Lots 6 and 7, putting a road across
that is impractical.  (2) Regarding deed restrictions,
they have done title searches showing no such
restriction.  (3) Regarding drainage:  Since they are
combining a couple of access points, they are controlling
drainage.  (4) Lots 6,7,8, and 9 are on a slope.
    Joan Crone, neighbor, presented a letter from 6
residents along the road.  They are requesting that the
GPC consider doing no curb cuts on Milner.
    (1)Why not put a driveway at the north end and all
of the lots could access Jones Road there?  These are .4
miles from Milner on a curve.
    (2) It’s the village taxpayers who pay for these.
    (3) While it’s true that the 250’ separation is
done by law, for lots 7,8, and 9 they are proposing to put
a 16’ driveway and a 24’ double driveway.  Immediately
across the street are three driveways.  If you have 800’
approaches and 25‘ stopping distances you can only have
three driveways and you already have 3.  Any more would be
dangerous.
    (4) If someone is pulling out on a 32’ road, it’s
safer.  Milner is 16’ wide. When a car pulls onto Milner
they take the whole road.
    (5) The curb cut design has not yet been approved
by LCPC, we can’t really say what will happen.  The
residents are asking that you not grant the curb cuts.
    Carl Stroud said the curb cuts would not affect
him as much as it would others. Fifteen years ago they had
the same discussion with the Murphys and at that time the
property was in the township.  We all agreed to work off
one access road and did not put curb cuts onto Milner.  
They were added afterwards.
    Regarding drainage, they agreed to a pond.  He
does not know how much was written down 25 years ago or
how binding anything was onto Milner, but the Murphys made
that agreement.  Since then the traffic has increased and
with school busses you have to pull off the road to let
them pass.
    Bill Crone has strong opinions with regard to the
development with a number of issues.  
(1)    This development is 52 acres on a 16’ old farm
road which has never been designated as a collector road,
which requires 32’ width. We have a 15’ road, and trying
to maneuver around the school bus is a challenge.  
(2)    The attorney has indicated there’s no issue.  She
says she is entitled to as many cuts as she wants but the
village controls the streets and the village has the right
to control what happens in the street so far as public
welfare.  That is a legal issue.  Look at the law of Ohio
regarding curb cuts.  We ask the Law Director for a legal
opinion regarding what the village has to say about curb
cuts and access.  A 1952 Ohio Supreme Court case says a
property only is entitled to access on a street if their
property abuts.  When you have a 52-acre lot with access
onto Jones, the issue is: Is it necessary to have access
onto Milner.  It is not necessary because you already have
access.  That case has not been overruled.  
(3)    We see no survey on these lots on Milner.  They
have never submitted dimensions on Milner.  There are no
berms.   A residential collector requires 32’wide and 8’
berms.  Then you can allow driveways every 250’ along each
side of the road. The driveways already on Milner have
taken up the area’s dimensions for the three driveways.  
Given the legal issues and safety issues and the watershed
aspect, I think we need more legal advice.  The front area
will have to be filled in.  What’s going to happen to
surface water runoff?  The Master Plan says we are not to
disturb natural areas or surface runoff.  
    Ms. Cunningham said this is a chicken and egg
issue.  As it is not a collector road, we are not
obligated to provide a road .  If it is a collector,
sharing driveways should be in order.  If it is not a
collector, shared driveways are not necessary
    Mr. Parris thinks we have had enough testimony but
let John Lewis speak.
    John Lewis said his uncle bought that 100 acres
and his aunt gave 37 acres for a park.  He does not have
anything in writing, but when they annexed that property
they told him he could have as many curb cuts as he
wanted.  They told him it is not a problem because it was
in the township, not in the village.  When they combined 7
access points, that was better.  Drainage can be worked
out.  He thinks this is fair as it has been worked out.
    
    Mr. Parris closed the testimony.  His big
disappointment is that we do not have a lot of information
from our own people, engineers and law directors.  He is
sure everybody’s information is the best they could
gather, but there are conflicts as to what the law does or
does not allow.  His suggestion is to table this until we
can consult with our own staff and get their opinion as to
what do we look at. Some of these issues may not be valid.
    Mr. Salvage agreed.  We have no ability to enforce
guidelines of the Master Plan. We are not sure what the
state law says and we need an opinion from the law
director.  He questioned the 24’ driveways coming onto a
16’ wide street. They have not requested 24’ driveways
        Mr. Wilkenfeld stated that one of the
chief things at issue is that we don’t have 9 lots; we
only have one lot. Why are we addressing this until we
have 9 lots?  Who pays for all this after the fact?  He is
not convinced that road is safe now.  Five people here
agree with the Crones.
    Mr. Salvage said we need to address this and the
other lot splits.  They may not have to come to us.  Mr.
Wilkenfeld said if Mr. Salvage is right, this is exactly
what they were talking about.  Cutting up one piece of
property and requiring a lot more curb cuts.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE 04-010 AT TGE REQUEST OF THE
APPLICANT. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Salvage would like to put restrictions on the lots to
mitigate any storm water concerns.

 Tim Ryan, 127 South Prospect Street – Sign

    Mr. Strayer said the applicant is unable to be
present tonight, but they are asking for an additional
sign hang below to a freestanding sign with two businesses
on it.  This will be blue and white and falls within the
code.
Mr. Parris said this is consistent with what we have
approved in the past.
 MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-014 AS
SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  Mark Clapsadle, 1075 Newark-
Granville Road - Modification      Mr. Strayer said this
application for modification of a previously approved
application is for expansion of a second floor dormer from
3 to 4 windows to provide more space.  Changes would not
be visible from the street.  
    Mr. Clapsadle added that they have found it
necessary to expand the space because of tight space
upstairs

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-012.  MR.
BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Burriss complimented the applicant on the clarity of
the drawings submitted.  Fred Abraham, 470 South Main
Street - Sign     Mr. Strayer said the application is for a
6’x3’ wall sign on the south wall for an additional
service with the complex.  The sign will be 18 sq.ft.,
which falls within code, but it will have 4 colors because
of the red bell in the corporate logo. The code only
allows for one wall sign per property and this will be the
6th on the building.  He is going to remove a sign from
the door and put it on the window.
    Fred Abraham said originally there were 6 colors.  
Members suggested ways to reduce the colors to 3.
    The building is really two buildings close
together but considered as one.  
    Mr. Parris said the multiple service nature of the
building is consistent with arguments we have made
before.  The sheer size of the building makes the signs
minimal.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld said all the other signs face south
and nothing faces the road, and you will not see the signs
unless you are in the front.  You will only see this new
sign from the road.

    Mr. Parris applied the criteria to the application:
A.  That special circumstances or conditions exist which
are peculiar lands or structures in the same zoning
district.   Special circumstances are the size of the
building relative to most other businesses in the village
we deal with. This is a multi-tenant building and approval
of the signs is consistent with decisions we have made in
the past at The Elms, the office complex, Taylor’s, etc.
    B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions
of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. We
have made similar arguments and similar concerns in other
situations.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  We have changes
the sign code several times and the application would
probably have been in compliance with the variance.
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.  N/A
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 will not do so.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES FOR SIGNS FOR
THIS APPLICATION.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

    Regarding the 4 colors on the sign, Mr. Wilkenfeld
said that the applicant has tried to go with 3 colors.  He
could take out the red bell, but Mr. Salvage said the
three colors and the bell are within the corporate logo,
which he cannot change.  Mr. Parris noted that based upon
the fact that his name on the shop is consistent with
other signs on the building. Mr. Parris said we made an
exception for Spring Hills Church because of the
background colors.  Mr. Wilkenfeld said one of the reasons
we don’t want more colors is that we don’t want something
looking garish, but this is not garish.  Mr. Parris said
the scale of the building is large.  Mr. Salvage said we
do not have a definition of what is a color.  Is white a
color?    

A.  That special circumstances or conditions exist which
are peculiar to other lands or structures in the same
zoning district.  It makes sense for this large building,
and we have done this for other people.
    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.  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.  We have under certain circumstances allowed
signs with more than 3 colors based upon the whole
package.  Due to the circumstances of the size of the
building and the nature of the business, we can make a
justification.
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 will not do so.
    Mr. Parris said we have justified this variance
based on the proportion of the building for the total sign
package presented to us        

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR COLORS. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-013 AS
SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Berzina Construction, 1st Federal Savings & Loan, 126 N.
Prospect St. - Sign
    (Mr. Riffle recused himself from the application.)
    Mr. Strayer said  the application is for a
temporary joint contractor sign in front of the building.  
The colors are uncertain but otherwise it is in compliance
with the code.  The applicant said there would not be more
than 3 colors and a green logo.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN LIMITED TO 3
COLORS.  FINAL APPROVAL TO BE GIVEN BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER
UPON APPROVAL OF THE COLORS.  THE TEMPORARY SIGN WILL BE
ALLOWED TO STAY UP FOR A MAXIMUM OF ONE YEAR.  MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOtION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Old Business:

Lisa Morrisette, 214 No. Pearl Street - Fence

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE
TABLE.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
    
    Mr. Strayer said the application was tabled
earlier because there was  not any site plan submitted to
show R.O.W. and fence location.  This is for relocation of
the fence to provide more side yard and construction of a
similar fence around the rest of the yard for the dog.
    Mr. Parris said we still don’t have an accurate
survey, and Ms. Morrisette said she has the survey for
when the house was closed.  The fence will go around the
yard from the corner of the porch.  She will either do a
picket fence similar to what is there now or do a lattice
fence.  It’s right on the property line.  She has talked
to the neighbor and there is no problem.  
    Mr. Burriss asked whether she was doing anything
to change the entrance of the porch, and she stated there
will be a gate.  She likes an antique style.  The style is
either picket or lattice similar to the existing with
similar white color.  Mr. Burriss is concerned about the
connection between the house and fence/gate and the
style.  Mr. Salvage thought it could be approved subject
to approval of the Village Planner.    
    
MR SALVAGE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF 04-171 WITH THE
CONDITIONS THAT (1) THE FENCE MAY OR MAY NOT BE MOVED TO
THE FRONT LINE OF THE PORCH; (2) THE NEW SECTION OF FENCE
WILL BE THE SAME HEIGHT AND COLOR AS THE EXISTING; (3) IT
WILL BE PICKET OR LATTICE OF WOOD; (4) IF YOU ARE GOING TO
ENCLOSE THE AREA BETWEEN PORCH POSTS, THAT DETAIL NEEDS TO
BE STUDIED; (4) THE WAY THE LATTICE WILL BE USED IS
IMPORTANT AND  APPLICANT WILL BRING FINAL PLANS FOR GATE
TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  

Binford Electric, BankOne, 137 East Broadway – lights
    MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF
THE TABLE.  MR. SALVAGE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
    
    Mr. Strayer said the application was tabled for
new lighting designs and schematic for light
disbursement.  The application is for a pair of walpaks on
either side of the awning to light up the night deposit
box for safety per instructions from BankOne corporate
policy.  
    Mr. Binford, contractor has talked to the lighting
experts and they came up with Washington Post Lights.  He
proposed 12’ high lights.
    Mr. Salvage said there is no ATM and he questioned
the need for additional light, and Mr. Parris agreed.
There is a lot of light already there, and we are trying
to reduce the light load.  Mr. Riffle stated that with the
existing lights and the proposed lights, they will be
lighting up the entire block.        
    Mr. Binford will take these comments back to the
bank and tell them you feel the current lighting is
adequate.  He requested  GPC to vote now despite the
negative reaction.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-003.  MR.
RIFFLE SECONDED AND MOTION WAS DENIED BY A VOTE OF 4 NOS
AND 1 ABSTENTION.

Binford Electric, BankOne, 484 South Main Street – lighting
The application was tabled to offer the applicant an
opportunity to come back with something more appropriate
and to provide lighting schematic.

IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO TAKE THIS OFF THE TABLE.  IT
WAS UNAMINOUSLY APPROVED.

    Mr. Binford said these are 12’ Charleston type
pole lights.  A pair of lights will be on the sides of the
building, They also propose a big wall sign off the
building on 12’ poles.  Mr. Binford checked with Ross’s
Market and they are putting in the same type of fixtures.
    Mr. Salvage said we are working at a major section
of the parking lot, and he would prefer to see this
lighting be a part of the entire package of lighting,
since the lighting is excessive.
    Mr. Riffle thought 4 lights would be sufficient.
Six lights is excessive and makes it look like a landing
strip.  Mr. Burriss agreed and did not think putting more
lights on an unattractive building is going to improve it.
    Mr. Binford said this lighting is what it would
take to fulfill BankOne requirements.
    Mr. Parris does not think he would be against a
pole light or two, but he thinks it should be incorporated
with the total package.  This is too excessive for the
circumstances.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-004.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS DENIED BY A VOTE OF 4 NOS AND 1
ABSTENTION.
    
WORK SESSION:

Arby’s, Cherry Valley Road – Site Plan

    Dave Conklin introduced Allison Hyer and Brian
Arnold and said they want to build an Arby’s at the
SuperAmerica {SA} lot.  It is one lot off the corner of
Rt. 16 and Cherry Valley on a 2.3-acre lot on a drive-
through off Cherry Valley.  It will have a brick building,
52-car parking lot, and a brick enclosed dumpster.  Cars
will enter from the rear, circle around, and pick up their
food.  They were asked to remove parking from behind the
building.  

    After a discussion of parking spaces, Mr. Salvage
thought 46 spaces would be sufficient.  
    Mr. Riffle stated that green space adds a lot
    Mr. Burriss asked whether the hedge follows the
previous shape, and he would prefer to see the hedge
follow the new contour.  
    Mr. Conklin described the dumpster, saying pick-up
is early in the morning before customers arrive. It would
have a gate.  They could add a mangate for easy access and
add a sidewalk.  
    Mr. Riffle asked about landscaping around the
dumpster and was told Yes, they want it to look nice, and
they will bring in a landscaping plan.  
    Mr. Salvage noted SA was required to provide
pedestrian and bike paths to Cherry Valley, and Arby’s
should work with SA on this.  
    If Mr. Burriss was bringing people in along SA
Way, he would like to see the front yard of Arby’s toward
SA Way.  He would have problems with the dumpster being
the first thing to be seen.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted to see more green between
the building and the cars.
    Mr. Burriss said it would be helpful if we had SA
give a drawing showing where neighboring buildings are to
see how you are relative to the structures in the entire
intersection area.
    Allison Hyer said they have to follow Arby’s
standard plan.  They have limits with what they can build
regarding driveways, brick buildings, brick under windows,
brick dumpster enclosure, AC on roof, 88 seats.  It’s not
fast food, but more of a casual dining area.
    Mr. Burriss would have trouble with the red roof
and red trim around windows and he wants to see examples
of brick.  Ms. Hyer said sometimes the red roof is more of
a brownish red.
    Mr. Burriss would promote a striped awning.  SA
did a good job of taking a corporate building and trying
to decorporatize it and detail it in a way that would be
complementary with what the commission felt appropriate.
SA did not necessarily have to do brick.
    Mr. Parris reminded them that our concern is how
it fits our code. Drive-throughs are not permitted in our
code. Trademark buildings are not allowed.  Ms. Hyer said
Arby’s would choose brick, but maybe it could have some
variation.   Mr. Strayer said drive-throughs are allowed.
    Mr. Burriss noted that Certified was designed to
fit our code, and he would ask for softening of the Arby’s
design.
    Mr. Salvage told them their challenge is to bring
in something appropriate for Granville. Take a look around
town and notice architectural features.
Mr. Parris assumes Arby’s is running into this situation
more and more often.
Ms. Hyer said there are several different designs and this
is the best one.
    Mr. Burriss said we are not trying to make the
building prohibitive, but taking off some of the red will
not cost more.  Do a general softening.  Make it
pedestrian  
friendly. Make the dumpster less visible.
Mr. Parriss said connect this to the bike path.  
    
Downtown Furniture

    Mr. Strayer said the Village has talked about
upgrading outdoor café furniture to wrought iron or some
other material. Plastic should be replaced.
    Mr. Salvage thought it could be metal or
aluminum.  People still have to come before us for
approval.  He asked Mr. Strayer to bring something in at
the next meeting.
    At one time we had a concrete table, added Mr.
Burriss, and the Deli had Coca cola umbrellas, for which
they got a permit.
    Mr. Parris would like to see no more plastic, and
Mr. Wilkenfeld recommended setting guidelines.
    Mr. Burriss said other cities have a variety of
styles, and it works.
    Mr. Burriss and Mr. Strayer will work on something
to present to us.

Finding of Fact: Mr. Salvage wanted the Findings for
Binford Electric to be written in such a way as to ensure
if it is appealed, it will be clear, and he asked Mr.
Strayer to write up a Finding, citing appropriate sections
of the code and bring it to next meeting.

 MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR
ITEMS A,B,E,F,G,H UNDER NEW BUSINESS  AND A UNDER OLD
BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT
SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE
PLANNER’S MEMO OF FEBRUARY 6, 2004.  MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  
Adjournment:  11:00 p.m. Next Meetings:   February 23 and
March 8  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.