Granville Community Calendar

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.