Granville Community Calendar

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

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.