Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 12/12/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 12, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tom Mitchell, Constance Barsky, Carl Wilkenfeld, Tym Tyler
 Members Absent:  Tim Riffle (Chair),
Visitors Present:    Carl Strauss, Dr. and Mrs. Mark & Lia Law, Gil Krone, Omar Whisman, Lee & Kathy Cecil, Dick Rogovin, Jeff Carr, Gordon & Ellen Wilken, Jim Ogelin, Jim Silone, Ed Lowry, Kent :Pitcher, Marilyn Pitcher, Kay Carvar, Carol Kenyon, Kenneth A. Kemper,
 Also Present: Molly Roberts, Acting Village Manager; Jim Gorry, Assistant Law Director
The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of November 28:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Granville Golf Course Co., Trinity Court - Preliminary Plat

 Mr. Strayer had stated that the Law Director said our decision was wrong and must be reversed.
 Thirty-seven neighbors on Wexford and Trinity presented a petition for GPC to reaffirm its earlier decision.
 Carl Strauss presented letter to Village Council for the record, concerning drainage and runoff. 
 Richard Rogovin sent a letter explaining why the Homeowners' Association feels the earlier GPC decision was appropriate. 
 Mr. Gorry, Assistant Law Director, said the Law Director has determined that both state law and our subdivision regulations do not prevent approving the lot split before you.  You are only dealing with a lot split; other issues can be addressed when a plat is presented to you.  Under Ohio Revised Code {ORC} there is no issue here, and approval is a formality.  No discussion is in order.  Our concern is that since there is no discretion, any delay may open up the village to lawsuits
 Mr. Wilkenfeld wondered, then, why this application is before us, and Mr. Gorry said ORC 711011 defines subdivision to include (1) any division of the existing parcel, any part of which is less than 5 acres.  It also includes the plating such that roads are being opened.  (2) It also provides that splitting a lot in conjunction with granting sewer and utilities, etc, is also a subdivision. What is being requested is not a subdivision.  It has been the policy of the administration to request approval of these things by the GPC, and other municipalities have done this.  In fact, things like this can be handled administratively, but it has been the past role of the administration to run these by the GPC.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said he has never seen a situation where we were told how to vote, and Mr. Gorry said it may be that at least during his time here he does not recall a lot split where no lot was being created less than 5 acres.  This is the first one.  It is routine in communities with larger tracts of land.
 Mr. Mitchell looked at the definitions given us and saw that it conforms with not being a subdivision with one possible exception in regard to (1) the storm drainage affecting something off-site. (2) If we have no jurisdiction, he does not know how we can vote opposite of how we voted last time, but can we rescind our last vote because it is not our jurisdiction.
 Mr. Gorry said the reason this is here is that the Licking County Auditor will not approve the deed without municipal approval even though it is not a subdivision.  All communities he knows of simply approve a lot split, and you can rescind it and we will treat it administratively.
  Mr. Burriss said if we rescind, how can people address the situation?  If it is not under our jurisdiction, then what vehicle do they have to address this?
 Ms. Barsky said that given the situation requesting a lot split, the neighborhood has no opportunity to prevent a lot split, and Mr. Gorry said Yes, lot splits cannot possibly cause injury to neighbors. 
 Mr. Mitchell said Granville has no ordinance about creating this situation, and Mr. Gorry said this does not fall under the 20-acre ordinance.  We cannot prevent splits because that is in direct conflict with ORC statute. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said it is clear that the Law Director is asking us to rescind and take us out of the loop.
 Richard Rovogin thanked the group for coming out on a cold night. The Assistant Law Director suggests a conflict between state law and your ordinances.  The conflict is under 1113.02B and he would like to suggest that because litigation may result, you should (1) ask the Law Director for a written legal opinion to which we can respond.  (2) Then call another meeting.  As he reads 1113.02B it limits what you can do.  The action you took at last meeting was entirely appropriate under Granville Zoning Code.  (3) Another problem is that an application was made by Park National Bank, and a request for restrictions was made by a different party, the Golf Course.  A request for reconsideration ought to be made by the applicant. 
 Mr. Gorry said the application calls for "subdivision without plat," but this is not a subdivision.  These are small lot splits where one of the lots is less than 5 acres.  With small lots you can do that without plat.  We are not dealing with a subdivision.
 Gil Krone, a contiguous neighbor, notes that since the application states "subdivision without plat," they were all prepared to discuss that issue.    A PUD seems to be the original issue because there is a special requirement under village ordinance 1171 that specifies whenever you have PUD to be employed, the entire 94 acres has to be presented in the form of a preliminary development plan along with the application.  A plat needs to be submitted.   Technically this was supposed to be a PUD matter and it is zoned PUD.  GPC should request this of the owner, but the owner is not here.  It should not even be considered because there is no presentation given by the owner.   He suggests that with the confusion with respect to 1113 subdivision without plat, the owner should resubmit the application under the PUD along with the required development plan under 1171.
 Mr. Gorry said yes, if you look at the application, it says subdivision without plat but that is an error.  This is a straightforward lot split of 36.7 acres.  We are reconsidering the original vote by which it was denied.
 Mr. Rogovin said that would be an erroneous application and the applicant is not here to explain what he said and refile.  Mr. Gorry said the Law Director is concerned about potential liability because we don't have the legal power to deny.
Even though the application is incorrect, it is still before the GPC. 
 Ms. Barsky requests an appropriate application.  We insist that when individuals are incorrect, they must come back with a proper application. Mr. Gorry said that would be appropriate.  If you rescind, he can go to the Planning Director. This applies to municipalities if it is less than 5 acres.  It does not approve any development. 
 Mr. Mitchell asked about the zoning, and Mr. Gorry said the zoning is perfectly appropriate as long as it's consistent with law.  If you rescind this, it is still before you.
 Mr. Rogovin said if you rescind, the Law Director says it is still before you but the applicant will simply go to the village with an application.  With an application marked subdivision without plat, you have to reply to it that way.  He does not understand what the Law Director is saying about liability.  If you act to deny this, the village is liable because you handled it as a subdivision without plat because that is what it says on the application.  He does not see a liability issue.
 The representative for Bob Kent, Jeffrey P. Carr, Project Manager and engineer, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  (1) Is the lot split within the bounds of what is legally allowed by the Village?  Yes.  (2) If it is a legal split, where are the grounds for denial?  We can fix this application and come back again, but can I get some idea why it was denied?  It meets the ordinances. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said a lot of what is said is not agreed upon.  In this meeting there is a question as to who is the applicant.  Mr. Carr did not disagree, but he is hearing that everything is good to go here.
 Ms. Barsky wondered why he did not pursue this directly with the County Auditor and was told the Auditor does not do lot split because he has to go through the village.
 Mr. Burriss said before any building permit can be issued or construction, there is a long process to go through.  There are areas where public comment will be taken.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said they need to find a way to get into the subdivision, and Mr. Gorry said access issues will be addressed by this commission. 
 Mr. Burriss said if we do not rescind, it will go around us so where does our authority come from to deal with a plat? Mr. Gorry answered any development that creates a single lot with less than 5 acres must go through you.  With 5.1 acres we do not have to approve lot splits but everything else about roads because the occasion of any connected roads constitutes a subdivision.
 Jim Harmon asked whether anyone other than the owner of the property allowed to request a lot split and was told, the owner or his representative, an agent.  This is not done by someone with an interest in the property.
 Mr. Tyler noted we have an upper portion and a lower portion, and people do not want upper portion traffic going through the lower portion.  Are we giving the developer permission to go through the property?  Can we talk about access?  Mr. Gorry said there are two access routes on the preliminary plat.  It's a permanent ROW, but the engineer said that is a gas and oil easement, and the access is on Trinity.
 Gil Krone asked if they were considering Newark-Granville or Milner for access.  You would not need an extension of Trinity, just a requirement under Granville subdivision codes as one issue to be resolved in building a road.  Mr. Carr said the Law Director said that would be a good access. Village Council has deemed Trinity a collector road. 
 Mr. Krone said the developer is not going to use a roadway that exists onto Milner but rather seeks entrance to a subdivision developed in 1983 under Granville Township regulations which were based on rural classifications demanding 11/2-2 acres and a reserve of 10 acres.  They are going to wind up with ½ acre lots costing $500,000 or more. 
 Mr. Gorry said if GPC will agree to rescind its vote, he will pledge that the administration will take no action and leave the matter pending and he will submit a written memo of what is going on here and what the legal issues are.  If you deny, there is no reason to take this beyond the commission.  There's nothing wrong with keeping this matter before the commission until we resolve the issues.  If it goes beyond, that is something the Law Director says he doesn't want to happen.  If this is a PUD, we need GPC and Village Council approval.  Both PUD and subdivisions are completely covered by GPC zoning subdivision regulation and it is referendable.
 Omar Whisman said that when Bob Kent builds Bryn Du, he had a turn-around at the top of the hill.  He had to have an access road in addition to the entrance road, and there are gates at the top and bottom and they can get in a case of emergency.   Mr. Tyler noted that would come before us eventually under a preliminary plan. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld would feel more comfortable getting the written report before we vote, but Mr. Gorry said you may not be able to.  If it goes to V.C. the Law Director will ask it to be remanded to you. 
 Mr. Mitchell said there will be two parcels to deal with and it appears the developer has found a loophole and I don't know that we have any way around it.  He would suggest rescinding the vote.
 Mr. Carr said the GPC did not deny it because it was incomplete--it was an emotional decision.  If it meets the intent, then it meets the intent.  They can fix the application.
 Mark Law quoted the Finding of Fact from the last meeting, and it is copied on the last page under Finding of Fact.
Mr. Gorry said you were under the impression you were dealing with a subdivision.  This is before you tonight because the Law Director specifically directed that this be on the agenda with the request that the denial be rescinded. 
Ms. Barsky replied then it is clear that they have not reversed their decision on the subdivision.  It's based on the fact that the Law Director asked for it and this is to avoid legal issues.  She asked whether this would prejudice anything in the future, and Mr. Gorry said No.  He will cover that in the memo analyzing the issues.  If an issue comes up, GPC will consider it.  He wants to make sure all issues are resolved.  The code does allow clerical amendments, and he would not make them refile. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether we can rescind with the understanding that it will come back to us, and Mr. Gorry said Yes, the ordinances provide that this is still before you if you vacate your prior decision.  Mr. Wilkenfeld asked, Will it come back to us without the X? Can we vote the way we want to? Mr. Gorry said we make a request that you can abide by the request or not.  We hope you will give serious consideration to legal issues.
 Mr. Rogovin said the Law Director is the director of the village, but we have heard nothing from the Park National Bank about what it thinks.    How can the Law Director say this is a mistake?  It's a pure legal issue.
 Mr. Mitchell noted it would be much better for everybody concerned if they would come in with a development plan with access to Newark-Granville or rather a full plan for those 94 acres.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO RESCIND OUR VOTE FROM APPLICATION 05-178 ON THE CONDITION THAT, PER THE LAW DIRECTOR'S SUGGESTION, WE WILL GET A WRITTEN MEMO ON THE ISSUES FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY. (Burriss, Mitchell, Tyler voted Aye, and Wilkenfeld voted Nay)


Finding of Fact (from the previous meeting):   The Planning Commission found that the application for lot split did not meet with the relevant section of the Granville Zoning Code or the Ohio Revised Code.  The Planning Commission found that since the application did not include relevant studies and plans for the future build-out of the proposed 36.715 acre parcel that the application was incomplete and must be objected to.


Adjournment: 8:25.p.m.

Next Meetings:   January 9 and 25
Respectfully submitted,


Betty Hullinger

Planning Minutes 11/28/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 28, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:  Tom Mitchell Tim Riffle (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld, Tym Tyler
 Members Absent: Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Jackie O'Keefe
Visitors Present:   Sharon Sellito, Lee & Kathy Cecil, Renie Baker, Jeff Clark, Ed Lowry ,Alyssa Lowry, Gil Krone, Omar Whisman, David White, Jeff Carr, Lee & Kathy Cecil, Mia and Mark Law, Andy English, Jim Silone, Caryl & Ken Kenyon, Kevin Goudy, Gil & Merilyn Pitcher, Julio Valenzuela
 Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of October 24:  Page 1, in the motion under White and in the last paragraph, change Mr. Riffle to Mr. Tyler.  The same on Page 2 in the first two motions.  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Village Baker, 212 South Main Street, - Sign

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO UNTABLE THE APPLICATION.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 Mr. Strayer said the sidewalk sign was tabled because of the design.  Tonight we have a re-design with the top two lines saying "Village Baker" and the rest to remain.  Changeable copy would need a variance. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked about the color and was told it would have green words.  He noted that changeable copy only comes in bold. 
 Mr. Riffle said we talked about changeable copy in town, but this is different.  Mr. Tyler added that if we agree that most of the signs with changeable copy are OK, we won't need a variance. They also want to advertise special events going on, but we are troubled by cheap-looking signs.  If they can come up with something classier but still readable, that would be better. 
Mr. Mitchell noted what we are trying to avoid is the portable generic changeable signs.
   Mr. Strayer said there is no definition in the code book, but any time you can change words, they are changeable.  In the AROD we have the governing power over what materials are used. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO TABLE 05-172 PENDING A NEW DESIGN.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Strayer was asked to make clear to the applicants what we want--something more appealing but still readable, possibly with a border.

New Business:

Whit's, 138 East Broadway - Sign

 The left hand window sign requested would say "The Soup Loft, homemade soups to go" and would be 2.5 sq.ft., burgundy, white and grey, made of plastic stencil.
 Members had no questions regarding the application.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Granville Golf Course, Trinity Court

 In speaking with the Law Director, Mr. Strayer said the County Auditor found it necessary to get approval from the village for the lot split of 36 acres from the total 90 in the parcel.    The Law Director said there is nothing in our code on which to make an opinion.  Ohio Revised Code says anything over 5 acres is not a subdivision.  We should make a motion saying we don't object to splitting off the lot as proposed.  It's in front of us because the Auditor would not allow them to file it until they had a reading from GPC.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld would feel more comfortable if the village considers this.  Mr. Strayer would have to get the Law Director's opinion.  
 He added that there is no language to not approve in the code.  If we object, it could be that they approve it anyway. 
 Jim Silone, neighbor, stated that if this project goes through, the only access would have to go through his street.  If there is a traffic problem, they could take it up the road, but he does not want 100 cars driving through his neighborhood.
 Mr. Strayer said if this does get split by the County Auditor and Engineer and we do not approve, then the property would have 35 acres on the top and 60 acres on the bottom.
 Mr. Tyler asked what happened since our last meeting, and Mr. Strayer said talks are continuing with the Engineer and others.  He does not have the traffic report yet. 
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether this lot split application arose since the last meeting, and Mr. Strayer said automatically it would just be approved by the Auditor and Engineer, but  for some reason they wanted a read from GPC. 
Omar Whisman felt this was an "end run."  The only reason for doing this is that this is the only way to get out.  If you do grant such a lot split, then he would suggest you put a 40' easement through the lower section so the traffic can go to Newark-Granville Road.  The road would have to be built before they start building on the hill.  All those cement trucks going up that road would not be able to get out once that goes in.
Mr. Strayer said the County can override us.  Anything over 5 acres is not a subdivision and they can approve it.
Mr. Tyler wondered whether it would come back here if we do not approve it, and the answer is yes, we would make a decision on the plat.
Again Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether this was known at the last meeting, and the answer this time was No.
Ed Lowry stated that this is a peaceful area with a lot of children.  There's only one way to Newark-Granville.  They built three houses recently and the traffic increased greatly.  He is not opposed to an addition but is opposed to having only one access road
Mike Law said there is a master plan, and you should probably push the Golf Course company to find out about the plan.  You should prove that until there is a development, it should be like Fern Hill with its own road.  The other thing is we asked for no decision to be made last time, but also asked for a traffic study and what impact it would have.  He added that the County must have some issues if they want GPC to consider it before they approve it.  Mr. Strayer said we ran into this access situation on Milner Road, and it was considered a connector road by Village Council.   We have no criteria on which to make a decision on this project. 
Mr. Mitchell said we should not approve a lot split that needs access.  We need to see a plat.
Gil Krone said since we have a new application, he will comment on the lot split of 94 acres.  In order for you to do the proper plan, you need to consider the entire parcel under the village ordinances and then present it to the GPC.   They filed an application for a lot split in order to eliminate the obligation for a plan for the entire project.  In the area related to the Milner Road situation, the village was obligated to approve access for the 50-acre subdivision because it did not have authority to not approve.  Now you are being asked to vote on something you don't have any authority to vote on.  If you are going to vote on something, you should have the authority beforehand.

Mr. Wilkenfeld said this is inside the village so why is the County involved?  Mr. Strayer said it's over 50 acres and is not a subdivision.  You can wait for the plan, but you must realize the county can split it anyway since we have no authority to approve or not approve.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THE VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE STRONGLY OBJECTS TO A LOT SPLIT.  MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dave White, 204 South Main - Sign

This application is for a 2'x4' sidewalk sign and is the same sign we suggested they hang from the existing posts at the last meeting. 
Mr. Wilkenfeld reminded the group that we recommended a border.  The other sign was green and blue.  Both signs should look the same.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THAT THE SIGN BE SIMILAR TO THE HANGING SIGN; (2) THE RED BE TONED DOWN TO BURGUNDY; (3) ADD A BORDER; (4) FINAL APPROVAL WILL INCLUDE A LOOK BY MR. STRAYER AND MR. BURRISS.  MR. TYLER APPROVED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Kevin Goudy, 288 S. Granger Street - Addition

 Mr. Strayer said the original house was in bad shape.  They want to extend the main two-story house 8' to the east, raise the roof on the house, remove brick chimney, remove cement asbestos siding and replace with 4" exposure bevel siding.  They will also paint the house and add a new roof and gutters. 
 Mr. Goudy said they found a barn with vertical board and batten and a layer of paper when they removed the siding.  He showed a sample of the new siding and pictures of the roof.  He was just going to replace the front siding and then he found carpenter ants and a leaky roof, so he knew he had to enlarge the project.  The house is 1 ½ stories and they want to raise the roof and push it out 8' to make two rooms and bathroom upstairs.  He explained where the windows would go.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted to see more drawings.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:  APLICANT IS TO BRING THE VILLAGE PLANNER SOME KIND OF DRAWING OF THE NORTH ELEVATION.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 .
Work Session:
Fifth Third Bank, Cherry Valley Road. 
 The architect said they are not going any further until they know final plans for the intersection.  At the last meeting we talked about exterior forms, door treatments, lighting.  It will be brick exterior.  She left a copy of the plans for Mr. Burriss to study.
 Andy English explained how the landscaping would look, with street trees, screening of headlights, etc.  Fifth Third Bank always has nice landscaping.  They would make sidewalk connections.  
Julio Valenzuela, 331 Spellman Street - Renovation
 Bob Schilling (father-in-law) said they have done a lot of work in  preserving historical renovations in German Village, Italian Village, etc. They are building a home in Bryn Du Woods, and he showed pictures of some of the work they have done.  In this house the previous owner glossed over the problems found by the inspectors, and the applicants would not buy it until they dropped the price far enough.
 Mr. Valenzuela said the lot is 75x182 and they would split it down the middle for two houses with a shared driveway.  They will need a variance for setbacks.
 Mr. Mitchell would like to see the reactions of the neighbors on making two lots out of one.  Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested tearing it down and building a bigger house.  He would like to see written statements from the neighbors that this is OK with them.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS 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 28, 2005.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:30.p.m.

Next Meetings:   December 19 (Mr. Riffle will be absent) and January 9
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Planning Minutes 11/14/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 14, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle (Chair), Jackie O'Keefe, Carl Wilkenfeld, and Tym Tyler
 Members Absent: Tom Mitchell
Visitors Present:   Sharon Sellito, Lee & Kathy Cecil, Renie Baker, Jeff Clark, Kim Kopral, Jim Silone, Bob Kent, Jamie Smith, Dave Ulritz, Ron Jones, David Thomas, ,Alyssa Lowry, Mike Oll, Innocent Wodzisz, Jim Ogden, Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Carl Strauss, Dr. and Mrs. Mark Law, Brian & Dana Krieg, Gil Krone, Omar Whisman, Kent & Marilyn Petoker
 Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of October 24:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Dave White, 204 South Main - Sign

 The application was tabled at the last meeting pending further information.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 As presented, this request for a second free-standing sign would need a variance for a second sign.

 In answer to a question by Mr. Tyler about the post, Mr. White said it would be similar to the other, which is an old sign.  The old sign had a variance for two signs at one time.  His request is for a 4.8 sq.ft. wood sign with white background and blue and green lettering.   
Mr. Wilkenfeld thought a way should be found to put the sign on the post already there, and Mr. White said the post is old and frail and the sign hangs from a chain, so some modification would be required.  He wondered whether he would have to re-apply.
Mr. Tyler said we could approve this with the provision that the Village Planner give final approval.  Mr. Wilkenfeld said it is OK to put in the new post and put the old sign and the White's new sign on the new post.  We are trying to limit the number of signs.    Mr. White noted that he might want a sidewalk sign later.
Mr. Burriss said typically we like to have the graphics framed with a border, which is consistent with other signs and seems more finished.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) ERECT A NEW POST FOR THE NEW SIGN AND THE OLD SIGN; (2) THE OLD POST IS TO BE TAKEN DOWN; (3) POSTS ARE TO BE THE SAME SIZE AS REMOVED SIGN; (4) ADD A BORDER; (5) VILLAGE PLANNER TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE POST.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street - Fence

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

 Mr. Strayer said the application is for a fence which will be the same style of fence as already on the property but it will only be 42" high across the front instead of 72":  He showed pictures of the yard and aerial photos.  It is an in-ground concrete spa with a cover.
Mr. Tyler noted that tonight we are simply looking at the enclosure, and we need to see exactly where the fence will be located.
Barbara Franks reviewed his history of the square footage  and the distances between spa and property line.
Mr. Riffle is still concerned about privacy issues, but it falls within the code.  Sharon Sellito wanted to speak, but the Chair said we will not take public comments because we have been over this so many times previously. This is a public meeting but not a public hearing.   

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR FENCE WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: (1) THE FENCE IS TO BE PUT IN THE GROUND BEFORE THE SPA GOES IN; (2) THE VILLAGE PLANNER TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL; (3) SPA WILL BE 10'X10'; (4) SPA WITH APRON IS 14'X14'; (5) A 2' APRON WILL BE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SPA; (5) EDGE OF GRASS IS 10' FROM THE REAR FENCE AND WEST SIDE FENCE; (6) FENCE ON WEST SIDE COMES OFF SOUTHERNMOST POST ON WEST SIDE; (7) FENCE ON EAST COMES OFF THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Twig, 454 S. Main Street - Sign


Mr. Strayer said the applicant is not here, but the 6 sq.ft. blue and white wall sign will be upgraded with changed text and border. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Innocent Wodzisz, Sidewalk Sign

 To identify a photography business above Bank One, the applicant wishes an orange, black, and silver plastic sidewalk sign.  In the application, it is the photo on the left side and will be 25" x 45".  Mr. Burriss reminded him the sign is to be outside only during business hours.

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

Granville Mill, 400 South Main Street - Sign

Mr. Strayer said in March we approved a temporary sidewalk sign for six months, and now they would like to extend that for another 6 months

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.   MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Golf Course Co., Trinity Court - Preliminary Plat

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant is presenting an introductory preliminary plat for a subdivision of 32 units to come off Trinity Court.  We are still awaiting reports from department heads and Village Engineer and Traffic Engineer. It is a total of 36 acres, of which 32 acres are buildable land with 3 acres for reserve and right of way.  Trinity Court is extended to serve as access point.  When Wexford was approved, there was an easement put in, which is for this proposal.
 Ms. O'Keefe wanted to know what kind of houses will be built and was told by Mr. Kent that they will be like the Bryn Du Woods homes, $500,000-600,000 homes.
 The woman who is president of the Residents Association at Bryn Du said they have concerns about the density and the amount of traffic to be generated.  What Mr. Kent proposal is denser than what we have here.  Lots average less than one acre, and most of the existing houses have two acres or more.
 Ms. O'Keefe wanted to know plans for future access.  Jeff Clark, Engineer for Mr. Kent, explained where it would be.  It is a steep slope so they followed the ridge. There will be a stub there for emergency vehicles.
 Mr. Strayer said this would be 32 units over 30 acres and would require a variance from the one-per-acre rule.  If the reserve area were to be given to the village, that would have to be subtracted.  If the Residents Association kept the reserve, it would not be included in the density total because it will not be deeded to the village. 
 Mr. Clark said the lots with sewer are smaller.  The sewer will extend up further.
 The engineer said they have talked about how traffic comes off Trinity Court.  It's a three-way intersection and will remain and there will be an island with grass median.  They could not put in a roundabout. The traffic review will concentrate on Wexford/Jones intersection. 
 Carl Strauss stated that the pond is his, and the way they have set this up, there is a drainage going across his yard, which holds septic and leach bed.  Those things need to be taken into account.  He thinks drainage should go into the storm.  He also wants an easement for access to his 15 acres.  The engineer said they can definitely look at these items. There is a large ridge, a ravine, and a wooded area, so the natural lay of the land will be followed.   He showed the group how the drainage would course down the hill. 
 Gil Krone said the extension is said to be an easement, but the original 1983- approved development showed differently.  It is a 200' access for future access.  The developer who created the plat reserves his intention to use that for access.  In order to create an effective dedication for a roadway, there has to be a present intent, which should have occurred in 1983.  There has never been any change in the developer's intent in regard to making it a dedicated easement.  Mr. Strayer will talk to the Law Director about this.  Mr. Krone said there is a three-acre wetland, and he explained where water runs into the area. 
 Jim Ogden's concern is with the access also.  The access to the property from the south was discounted much too quickly.  Mr. Strayer said they will look at this.  There are considerable elevation problems.  We don't want to make public roadways that are so severe as to be undrivable, but we need more than one access into the subdivision.
 Warren Whisman has lived in Erinwood 19 years, and several times he has almost been rear-ended on Jones.  He requested a time-study on the traffic study. Mr. Tyler noted that there will be a lot of traffic at Bryn Du Mansion.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED  

Village Baker, 212 South Main Street - Sign

 Mr. Strayer said the new baker wants a new sign with changeable letters, which is not allowed in the village.  Because of other signs in the village with messages that change, this is not considered a temporary sign.
 Tom Wenway (?) said his goal is to promote community activities.  The current sign is a stagnant sign, and they want to invite customers to attend activities and eat goodies. Mr. Strayer said we permit blackboard or erase marker boards but none with changeable letters. 
 Mr. Tyler wants to get creative and come up with something not quite as commercial looking, something with consistent fonts. 
Mr. Burris said it took a long time to get the original sign the way we wanted it.  Could we work for something with The Village Baker at the top and four lines of smaller type below?  We want to be consistent throughout the village, and we want the sign to look like it belongs there.  
Jim Kopral, owner, said they are looking for something with driver impact.
Mr. Riffle would be more in favor of changeable information below the top saying "The Village Baker."  He wants the applicants to have what they want while at the same time keeping it consistent with other village signs. 
MR. TYLER MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE FOLKS AT VILLAGE BAKER WORK WITH MR. STRAYER IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS TO DESIGN A MORE SUITABLE SIGN.  MR. STRAYER WILL EMAIL THE COMMITTEE.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Brian Kreig, 226 East Maple - Addition

 Mr. Kreig noted they received a variance from BZBA and they refined the elevation according to GPC's recommendations. 
 Mr. Burris expressed his appreciation and thanks for Mr. Kreig's patience in dealing with the application.
 Mr. Kreig said it would be wood-sided in the back and front. They are debating shingle vs. standing seam metal.  Wood windows, standard 4" trim.  They want to match what's there now.   New windows will be 2 over 2 for the renovated porch.
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE WITH CONDITION:  (1) UPPER EAST WINDOWS TO BE 2 OVER 2.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Fifth Third Bank, Cherry Valley Road. 
 They want to build a bank at the SuperAmerica site, with three drive-throughs.  It would be a neutral color, with shutters and wood trim of a taupe color.  Asphalt shingles, weathered wood-look on dimensional shingles.
 Mr. Burris said they heed a landscape plan. He wants more architectural detail rather than more glass and a nicer or paneled door.  We need a sign package, sidewalk plan, and lighting plan.  Speedway needs to provide a temporary plan to ODOT, and then it goes to Village Council.  Mr. Wilkenfeld said SuperAmerica would have right-in only.  Mr. Strayer said the interchange is not certain yet.  If Cherry Valley is an up-and-over, it would make Fifth Third Bank's location difficult.  Not knowing what ODOT wants to do scares him.
 The woman representative said there will be ground-mounted signs with poles and under-canopy lighting.  Trash will be privately picked up. 
 Mr. Strayer requested Fifth Third to contact District V at ODOT about their plans before going further.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A and B UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS A,B,C,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 NOVEMBER 14, 2005.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9:12.p.m.

Next Meetings:  November 28 and December 19
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Planning Minutes 10/24/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 24, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle (Chair), Jackie O'Keefe, Carl Wilkenfeld, Tym Tyler, and Tom Mitchell
 Members Absent:
Visitors Present:  Robert Hawk, Bill Heim, Sharon Sellito, Kim Ball, David Ball, Jeremiah Conkle, J. Dolly Conkle, Ed Meurer
 Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of September 26:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Twigs, South Galway Drive - Sign

 For the Tour of Homes, the TWIGS want a temporary freestanding sign at Newark-Granville and Cherry Valley on Fackler's property.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Robert Hawk, 236 West Elm Street - Gate
 
 Mr. Strayer said that the applicant wishes a gate between the east side of house and the existing wall to open up to the back yard.
Mr. Hawk added that the color of the gate is the same family color as the doors on the house.
Mr. Burriss asked whether it will be in front of the hose bed and was told it will be behind. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR GATE AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dave White, 204 South Main Street - Sign

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes a freestanding sign on the South Main Street side of the building on the north side of the sidewalk, where there is already one sign.  The code only calls for one and this would be two. The front door is on the South Main side, and he made the recommendation that the sign hang onto the existing sign.
 Mr. Burriss said we have always had combined signs. 
 Mr. Mitchell asked whether there are other businesses with more than one sign and Mr. Strayer said there might be one.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld couldn't tell exactly what the sign would look like
 Ms. O'Keefe is wary of setting precedents.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted to table this until we have more information.  The applicant is not here tonight.
Mr. Burriss wanted Mr. Strayer to tell the applicant that we are all in favor of a single sign post, but this is not sufficient information to approve the sign.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION UNTIL MORE INFORMATION IS RECEIVED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

David Ball, 508 West College Street - Lot Split

[Mr. Riffle recused himself from the application.] 
Mr. Strayer said in this type of lot split, subdivision without plat, there are requirements within the SRD to limit frontage and area for the subdivided lots. 
The property has been surveyed, and the surveyor, Mr. Conkle, said the original tract was two lots when the Hoffmans owned it. The tract was then combined into one parcel for tax purposes.  The surveyor went back 10' instead of the original 5' to allow more room for the driveway to the lot line so neither lot would have problems with access.  A 2,000 sq.ft. house can go in there and fit within all regulations.  He explained that the driveway can go anywhere on the street frontage
 Ms. O'Keefe noted that visibility from the existing driveway is difficult, and Mr. Conkle showed where the setback lines for a house would be. 
 He said there is room for one parking space on the street.  Some trees would have to be removed for a house.
 Mr. Burriss asked about drainage issues, and Mr. Strayer said drainage for new construction would be handled during the application process.  There is room for a retention area.
 The woman who lives next door was concerned about notification and Mr. Strayer explained the regulations.  She was also concerned about safety on the dangerous curve and how a new house would impact her property.  She would rather not have a house on that lot

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Patrick Hull, 335 West Elm Street - Addition

 Mr. Strayer said this application is for a small addition onto the rear of the house.  The walk-out basement will be filled in under the bump-out.  They are not changing the footprint.
Mr. Hull said he bought Tom Mitchell's house, and the plan will add 72 sq.ft. to the basement.  The plan is very simple and should help with the heating of the house. They will pour a concrete slab for ceramic tile, and the windows and siding will match the house.  They will move the door (if in good condition) and window presently in the basement to the new area.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.   MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Edward Meurer, 2402 Newark-Granville Road - Addition

 Mr. Strayer said they want to add 1141 sq.ft. Addition and the application will require a variance for being within 100' of the TCOD.  It is 98' and it would go to 83' with new addition.    Since it is more than 25% of the house, the addition falls within the AROD. 
 Mr. Meurer said they will use flat partyline 9" siding, supposed to match the existing, and the paint and roof tiles will match. They will extend the house 16 ½' beyond the original house.  Mr. Strayer said it will be only 6' because Newark-Granville runs at a skew there.  Lots of houses in the area have less than 100' setback.
 Mr. Meurer said they will try to meld both windows as much as possible.  They will add a porch and tie it in with the addition.   
 Mr. Wilkenfeld is having a problem with the part that sticks out from the house, and Mr. Meurer said the floor plan works well and allows the living room to connect to the dining room.  Their goal was to meld new and old and thought the porch tied them together well.  There will be a side entrance to the porch. 
 Mr. Burriss likes the two gables on the front.  He asked whether others would be more comfortable with a pair of double hung windows, and consensus agreed with the suggestion, as did Mr. Meurer.  Mr. Burriss said it would be consistent with the vocabulary on that side and would give plenty of light; it would also be more consistent.  That would deemphasize the bump-out.   He said he would like to see an overall map showing location of neighboring houses. 
 Mr. Mitchell said the slope of the roof goes into the house and was concerned about the meeting of roofs.  Mr. Meurer said they will tie it in with the gutter.  They are aware that there won't be a light, but they have talked to builders and they thought it could be made to work.  Water runs into the flashing and runs down. 
 Mr. Riffle thought the big window was a strategically odd piece of vertical window among the horizontal windows.
 Mr. Meurer said there would be a brick walk from the driveway to the porch.  He showed them a smaller hand-drawn plan, and members thought the computer rendition makes it look huge, but the little plan looks more reasonable.
 Mr. Riffle said they will lose a little pediment.  He wants to pull porch roof to the edge of the house.  A double-hung window would be fine.
 Mr. Tyler wanted to move the porch over to connect both edges of the house. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:  (1) THE ROOF OF THE PORCH WILL COME TO THE EDGE OF THE HOUSE ON THE WEST; (2) STAIRS WILL MOVE FROM SIDE OF PORCH TO THE FRONT; (2) THE 6' BUMP-OUT WOULD HAVE TWO SMALL WINDOWS INSTEAD OF ONE LARGER ONE; (4) THIS IS CONTINGENT UPON BZBA APPROVAL (IT'S ALREADY ENCROACHING).  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A,B,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 OCTOBER 24, 2005.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:10.p.m.

Next Meetings:   November 14 and 28
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Planning Minutes 9/26/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 26, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle (Chair), Jackie O'Keefe, Carl Wilkenfeld
 Members Absent: Tym Tyler, Tom Mitchell
Visitors Present:  Mildred Moss, Louis Rodewig, Jodie Schlmidt, Ned Roberts, Amber Mitchell
 Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of September12: Page 3, Line 3, add and the applicant was willing to do so.
Page 3, Line 9 from bottom, change to "Mr. Riffle wants it 2' farther back."  
Page 2, line 1, change to Bernardita.
 MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Dan Rogers - 210 East  Maple Street - Spa -THIS APPLICATION WAS TABLED AT REQUEST OF APPLICANT.

New Business:

Louis Rodewig, 234 N. Pearl Street - Gate Replacement
 
 Mr. Strayer said that currently there is a gate in the drive, but it is one full piece and now they want it in two halves to swing into the sidewalk.  It will have two swinging gates with the same material and same color.  He said the village advocates fences not blocking sidewalks.

Mr. Rodewig said no other changes are being made.  It will have white pickets hinged at both gates. The present gate is over 11', hinged on one side only.  The gate is difficult to operate-it sags and twists and it blocks a sidewalk when opened fully. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-143.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James Young, 105 N. Prospect Street - Awning Replacement

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to replace a deteriorating awning at Kussmaul with a more durable standing seam galvanized metal awning. 
 In his application, Mr. Young stated that this design would be consistent with the architectural history of the building's use as a warehouse during canal days. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether this material was appropriate and was told that several have standing seam. 
 Ms. O'Keefe asked about the color and  Mr. Burriss said either GPC or Mr. Strayer would need to approve the color. Mr. Riffle thought it would be OK if it blended in with the building.
 Mr. Riffle asked whether there were other galvanized metal in the village and was told no; most are fabric. 
 Mr. Burriss liked the standing seam but is not quite sure of the galvanized.  Mr. Wilkenfeld agreed and Mr. Strayer said he thinks Mr. Young would find this acceptable. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-144 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPROPRIATE METAL COLOR WILL COMPLEMENT OR BLEND IN WITH THE BUILDING.  MR. STRAYER WILL TAKE A FINAL LOOK AT IT.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James Young, 140 E/ Broadway - Signs

 Mr. Strayer said Mr. Young will remove existing signs and replace with a wall sign and two window signs.  This meets all sections of the code. The signs will be compatible with the neighboring signs  (1) The side door sign will be for identification to delivery drivers;  (2) The sign on the side window  identifies the store; (3)  the 12-inch K will replace current signage in the two front windows, and it and the KUSSMAUL GALLERY below it will be silver leaf vinyl; it will have a running  little stream of wording describing the content of the store; (4) the front wall sign is above the awning, dark green background, letters 3-dimensional, "galvanized metal" look, with a frame surrounding the sign

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE SIGN PACKAGE 05-145.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jodie Schmidt, 218 E. Maple St. - Garage

 Mr. Strayer said this application for a buggy barn went before BZBA and received variances for side and rear setbacks.  The current garage loads onto the alley, and the new one would load onto the concrete pad.  It's 1' from side and 3 ½' into the setback.  BZBA talked about elevation on west side and whether it includes windows.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked if there will be a second story, and Ned Roberts said it will be 1½ stories with 12' of living space at the center of the building upstairs and the rest is sloped.
 Mr. Schmidt said the space is for storage and a place to work out.  Now they enter from the alley, and it would be safer and have better visibility entering from the side. 
 Ned Roberts said there will be windows on the west; Bernardita Llanos requested two windows, centered, with flower boxes on the lower level.  Ned Roberts said the windows will match the gable windows.
 Regarding lighting, there will be foot lighting.  Mr. Schmidt said they are not lighting up the neighborhood.  The lighting package is not complete, and Mr. Strayer will need to take a look at it when it's ready. 
 Mr. Burriss asked whether trash cans will be inside or outside and was told that now they are outside but with the new garage they will be inside.
 Discussion ensued about how close other garages in the alley were and most of them are well into the setback minimum.  Mr. Strayer said BZBA wanted to be sure everything was consistent on the alley, and the size of this building would be consistent. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-148 FOR GARAGE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THE LIGHTING WILL BE WALL LANTERNS OR OTHER LIGHTING TO BE APPROVED BY MR. STRAYER; (2) ADD TWO WINDOWS ON LEFT SIDE TO MATCH GABLE END WINDOWS.  .  MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-139 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A,B,C,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 SEPTEMBER 26, 2005.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  7:31 p.m.

Next Meetings:   October 10, Columbus Day, no meeting unless something comes up. 

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Planning Minutes 9/12/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 12, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tym Tyler, Tim Riffle (Chair), Jackie O'Keefe
 Members Absent: Tom Mitchell, Carl Wilkenfeld
Visitors Present:  Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers,  Sharon Sellitto, Kevin Reiner, David Robbins, Barbara Burdett, Mildred Moss, R. Adams, Dan Dobbelaer, Bernadita Llanos, Leon Habegger, Marc Brockman, Richard Cherry, Amit Kumar Siani, Frank Bernini
 Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of August 22:  MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS DISTRIBUTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Dan Rogers - 210 East  Maple Street - Spa

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE; MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Strayer said the applicant has submitted a new site plan.  Also, there are letters from the neighbors in our packets.  Considering the strong objections of the neighbors, Mr. Strayer recommends that "Only through agreement of all the property owners should this be approved."
 Mr. Riffle noted that the BZBA has approved the lot coverage for 56% but with recommendation that more fencing or covering be added for privacy. 
 Ms. Franks reported that the spa would have a cover on it.  It would be impossible to completely buffer the yard from the second story of neighboring houses.  On being asked what kind of bushes or flowers she would plant, she noted that one corner plant that was cut down is coming back and will block one neighbor's view. They don't want to plant evergreens. She does not know what kind of flowers will be grown in the planters, but "it will be lovely." 
 Ms. O'Keefe asked why they did not site the spa closer to the house and Ms. Franks said they were told it was too close to the property line.  Mr. Rogers added that they were told the fence would have to be right up to the house to adhere to property lines, so they took it out.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked what the purpose of the spa is, and Ms. Franks said it is an in-the-ground spa and it will make us feel better.  It is for their own personal use. 
 Mr. Burriss asked whether it will be brick pavers or grass, and Ms. Franks said originally they wanted a patio but the lot coverage was too much and they reduced it to 14 sq.ft, which ousted the patio.  It is a spa with tile trim around it. 
 One of Mr. Burriss' concerns is that even though the applicants have done a beautiful job on restoring the house and porch, he is not seeing any screening from the street.  Ms. Franks said they will put up a wrought iron fence along the second layer of stone.  From the street you will see picnic tables.  Mr. Burriss then asked how they will transition from the picket fence to the wrought iron fence, and extensive discussion took place about the fences.    Mr. Strayer said a fence is required;  even with a lock-in spa cover for safety, the code requires a fence, either around the entire property or just around the spa. Without a fence, they would have to go to BZBA for a variance.  Ms. Franks thought with a lock-in cover they would not need a fence, and a fence with gate would be a detriment for the children playing in the yard having to open the gate frequently. 
 Discussion ensued about other pools or spas in the same zoning area, and Bernardita Llanos, neighbor, asked what is the distance from the pool to the lot line.  It is 10' instead of 12'; the code requires 10'. 
 Ms. Llanos' two concerns were privacy and safety.  She said the applicants keep the fence door open most of the time.  With a spa, more people would be attracted to the yard.
 Sharon Sellitto, neighbor, said a spa does not fit with the architecture in the AROD.  The plantings should be evergreens for year-round buffering.  More discussion took place on tree removal and drainage.
 Mr. Cherry thought it was funny that the people who are going to be looking into the others' yard are the ones concerned about privacy.  "If you don't want to see, don't look."   Nothing can block everything out.
 Mr. Tyler suggested tabling this until we get a good look at the fence and where it would be sited and what will work for everybody.  Without a fence it would have to go to BZBA.  He said that in order to protect the applicant as well as the village, any plans must be in detail.  Ms. Franks said they will not put in the spa until the fence is up.  Ms. O'Keefe said that based on the history of that property, she would like to see a detailed plan.  But Ms. Franks said she did not know what else GPC wanted.  She could bring in an estimate of what the wrought iron fence would look like.   Mr. Burriss would like to see a sample of the fence and posts and exact location of fencing. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION 05-061 PENDING RECEIPT OF FENCE DESIGN AND DETAILED SITE PLAN.  MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.


AAATH, Inc., 109 N. Prospect St. - site work
 The applicant wishes to (1) replace the deteriorating steps with three 13" steps, with the top layer consisting of a solid brick-width layer of white Indiana Limestone; (2) replace existing front door with a similar one and replace side panes with leaded and beveled glass; (3) the banister will be replaced when the rest of the work is done.
 Russ Adams said rain falls off the awning onto the bricks.  They will bring the two planters together.  He said they should weather and get darker and look natural.
 Mr. Riffle asked whether he has checked the code requirements for railing and step size, and Mr. Adams said the contractor told him the ratio would be 7/13.
 Mr. Burriss wondered whether there should be handrails on both sides, and this needs to be determined. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-129 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT CHECK WITH LICKING COU TY CODE DEPARTMENT TO SEE WHETHER  AN ADDITIONAL HANDRAIL IS NEEDED TO BRING IT UP TO CODE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

First Baptist Church, 115 West Broadway - sign
 Mr. Strayer said the church wants a 12 sq.ft. freestanding sign in front of the Education Building to identify the Cooperative Daycare space.  Dan Dabbelaer said It would have wood rather than aluminum posts and would be on two posts (instead of the one listed in the application. There will be a flowerbed at its base.
 Mr. Burriss would like them to consider more decorative posts.  The church is one of our architectural jewels and we have to think about this on Broadway.  We are trying to establish consistency in signage. They might take a look at other signs in town.  The proposed sign is generic and not much in keeping with some of the things we have tried to encourage. He suggested adding a border and matching fonts with other signage at the church.  Add some detail and the applicant was willing to do so. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-131 WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS:  (1) THAT THE STYLE BE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING FONT STYLE THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY; (2) ADD BORDER; (3) ADD ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL TO POSTS; (4) SUBMIT FINAL DRAWING TO VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Kristin Darfus, 130 N. Prospect Street - sign
 Mr. Strayer said there are two signs requested for the new Indian restaurant, Masala Casa and Smoothie Shop, one in front and one on the side.  The overall signage for the building is OK.  The hours of operation will be added to the door. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-132 FOR SIGNAGE.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

David Robbins, 324 West Elm Street - garage addition
 Mr. Robbins said the garage will be a 12'x9" pole barn style with five holes for posts. The magnolia tree would not have to be removed. The overhead door will be 2' above the door of the house.  There are hydrangeas and hostas, which they will move to the new exterior.   They will match trim and scroll detail.  Driveway would change from gravel to concrete. 
 Mr. Burriss was concerned with the overall street landscape; most homes have separate garages behind the houses. He feels that the 2' setback is not enough to maintain integrity of the house.  Mr. Robbins thought the garage in the plan balanced the tower on the other side. In his letter he said, "We have tried to prepare a building plan that enhances the street façade of our home and is stylistically compatible with other existing structures, while providing us with an integrated modern garage addition to suit our needs."  Mr. Burriss was concerned about setting a precedent here. An attached garage is a suburban detail. 
 Mr. Tyler asked whether the garage could be set back a little bit, and Mr. Robbins thought they could go back 4' from the front of the house but would need a variance.  But Mrs. Robbins said if they go back, they would no longer have a window for the den.  She added that the entire back yard is occupied.  
 Mr. Robbins said attaching the garage to the house is not set in stone.  They are not planning an entry from the house.  Along the west side there is an old stone wall. 
 Mr. Burriss was concerned about the scale of the front elevation, and Mr. Robbins said it is 12/4 pitch on roof and a 9' high wall.  He said they need room for two cars.
 Mr. Riffle wants it 2' farther back. 
 Mr. Burriss said the house has a vertical emphasis and he is concerned about adding a garage door at the front view of the house.  He likes the architectural detail and would expect it if the garage moves back.   He said it's a difficult house to not ruin the proportion and scale of. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-135 WITH THE PROVISION THAT (1) THE SETBACK WILL BE 4' FROM FRONT PLANE OF THE HOUSE AND (2) GARAGE DOORS MEET WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820- Newark-Granville Road - relocation of playground
 Mr. Strayer said the church wants to move the playground from the west side to the south side.  It will be the same style.
 Leon Habegger sand they will move it to the back of the new Sunshine School addition, and explained exactly where it will be located.  It will be fenced in.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-138 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Frank Bernini, 338 West Elm Street l- site work
 Because of the tight turnaround for driveway and the one-way road on South Plum, the applicant is requesting driveway expansion with landscaping.  They would have room for more parking, but would need to remove the sidewalk in front.  They will take down the hedge and railroad tiles.  The tree will stay.  They want a 3' wide exposed aggregate wall and grass.  Steps will be added for the 3 ½' slope, and plantings will be added.   
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-139 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Kevin Reiner, 540 West Broadway - Modification
 The plan is to change the plans from a greenhouse to a standard addition for a family room.  They would use the same foundation, same siding and detailing.  The greenhouse was to be 25'x18' and the modification would be 22'x19'
 
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-140 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Brian Craig, 226 East Maple
 Mr. Craig said we talked about this before.  On the east elevation they want to put a bay on second floor.  Its 7', existing.  The bay would go 2' over.
 Consensus had no problems with the plans.

Finding of Fact:  MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A THROUGH G 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 SEPTEMBER 12, 2005.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  9:17 p.m.

Next Meetings:   September 26 (Mr. Tyler will be absent) and October 10

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Planning Minutes 8/22/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 22, 2005
Minutes

Members Present :), Tom Mitchell, Tym Tyler, Tim Riffle (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld, Lyn Robertson (for Village Council)
 Members Absent:  Jack Burriss (Vice Chair)
 Visitors Present:  Gloria Hoover, Bill Heim, Bill Ryan, Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Mark Gearhart, Mark Compton, Sharon Sellitto, Sarah Wallace, Stewart Dyke, Paul Thompson, Fred Ashbaugh, John Cassell,  Ray Paprocki, Robert C. King, Lisa McKivergin, Lauren Pearson, Julio Valenzuela, JoAnn Morey, Bernie Dew, Deborah Jardine, Art Chonko, Kevin Reiner, Seth Patton
 Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Citizens Comments:  none

Minutes of August 8:  MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS DISTRIBUTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of July 11: MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS DISTRIBUTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Old Business:
First Federal Savings, 209 East College St. Fence

{Mr. Riffle recused himself from consideration of this application and Mr. Wilkenfeld led the meeting.}
 The applicant wishes to (1) erect a black aluminum fence along the rear property line and to (2) enclose the dumpster with vinyl fencing and gate.  The color will match overhang of the Darfus building.
 John Compton, V.P. from First Federal, said the reason for the request is an agreement that First Federal had with Unizan to remove a tree along the southern property line which was growing over the First Federal in exchange for a fence as barrier.  Jim Siegel had granted permission to remove the tree. (2) They also wanted a barrier around the dumpster with a gate.
 Gloria Hoover movingly presented the concerns of the neighbors on College Street when and if the house First Federal owns is torn down for a parking lot. This is a neighborhood community village vs. a corporation.  The alley was a fire alley with access to neighborhood garages, and Chuck Kinsey bulldozed the garage.  The Village declared the alley legally vacated.   The proposed fence would close access through the alleyway.  Mrs. Hoover is adamant against having a parking lot next door.  She feels that people can easily park near the bank on the street. 
 Debby Jardine said the neighborhood is a wonderful ambiance of trees and she is strongly opposed to a fence
 There was a question as to who owns the alleyway and if it was legally vacated. Mr. Wilkenfeld would like the Law Director to research the matter and bring us an answer.  Mr. Mitchell thought that since a question exists, we need to review the past history of the area.  Mr. Strayer said the application is for the property line behind the white house.
 Mr. Compton said the easement is not affected by the record.  They are only talking about the southern line and whether or not there are other easements would have no bearing on their fence. He noted there are other fences along there and theirs is more "see-through" and ornamental.
  Mr. Strayer said it would be at the very edge of the easement and would not restrict traffic.
 Mark Gearhart, from Unizan, said they wanted the fence because the area was in bad shape.  People park on their lot and go to the other buildings, and they are trying to protect their parking spaces.
 Even though Lisa McKivergin is for preservation, she said this spot cannot be maintained with dignity and the next best thing is to go ahead and do what needs to be done.
 Deborah Jardin asked whether the intent for the fence is to keep cars out.
 Mr. Mitchell thought that since there are objections and since there is a question on the easement, more research should be done. 
Mr. Strayer says the tax maps do not show an easement along there.  He would have to get the map from the county, but it does not seem to be an easement there.  It seems to have been vacated.  An easement would not restrict any movement through the area.  People can walk parallel to the fence. 
Mr. Tyler said there are two private property owners who want the fence  and desire not going any farther onto anyone  else's property.   He reminded the group that First Federal has agreed to put in a fence to appease Unizan's wish to keep people off Unizan's property if they have no business with the bank.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said it's a nice fence and they are doing it in good faith, but if there are issues not being addressed, he wants that as a condition.
 John Cassell has two lots there and has heard nothing about maintenance of the fence, the fence on the rear line of his property was installed by the neighbor and it is being torn down and he has done nothing about it.  That would happen to this fence as well.  {He was told First Federal would maintain it.}

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE VILLAGE PLANNER CONSULT WITH THE VILLAGE ATTORNEY AND DETERMINE FOR CERTAIN THAT THERE IS NO PUBLIC ACCESS BEING AFFECTED BY THIS FENCE. MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Dan Rogers - 210 East Maple Street - Patio

 Mr. Strayer said we have a revised version, and we have letters from some neighbors opposed (Sharon Sellitto and Bernarditto Llanos) to the plans.  BZBA did approve a variance for 56% lot coverage, which was reduced from 67%.  They strongly recommended that some kind of screening or privacy be included in the application.  The fence is not included in this application.  Jack Burris told Mr. Strayer he was concerned about the viewshed from the roadway, 
 Barbara Franks explained that the reduction in lot coverage came about because originally there was going to be a patio but now it's just a spa.  The planter boxes will match the driveway. The spa is in the back of the property.  Someone suggested a wrought iron fence, but she does not think that is necessary.  Since they have extended the fence forward, this would tie into it.  When asked whether it would be visible to the neighbors, she said it's a 6' fence and it would be visible from the second story.  Water next door drains onto their property.
 Mr. Strayer said they still need to meet with the Service Director to be sure water does not drain onto this property.
 Ms. Franks repeated some of the difficulties she has had with the neighbors over water drainage and other issues.
 Mr. Riffle noted that we have no information on the spa. And Mr. Wilkenfeld is concerned about objections from neighbors.
 Sharon Sellitto read from 1161.02 about stylistically preserving the structures (a spa does not); contributing to the historical character (a spa does not); contributing to the continuing vitality (it makes neighboring lots harder to rent or buy).  She requests this vista be eliminated.  She recommends building the spa in the Rogers ample garage.
 Ms. Franks said you couldn't see anything until Ms. Sellitto cut down the trees (including hers).
 Mr. Riffle brought the discussion back to the application.
 Lisa McKivergin, who owns lots near there, thinks there is a way to make everything work.  There's merit to what Sharon Sellitto says, and to have a spa or hottub with proper screening might work.  Wrought iron does not screen.  She would have no objection to their having a spa.
Mr. Tyler asked in the AROD where are there other hottubs and pools?  He was told there are at least two pools (enclosed). 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld noted we have no drawings or pictures of how it will look.
 Mr. Tyler said there should be a way for neighbors to sort this out, but what will happen is that eventually there will be issues coming up later if we approve it as it is now.  He wants to know how the Rogers will prevent neighbors' complaints, and Barbara Franks said it has to be visible from the second floor next door. 
 Mr. Riffle said (1) we don't really have an accurate representation of how this would go together; (2) information is missing that would help us make decisions; (3) we don't know what the planter looks like; (4) we need to talk about privacy issues from the perspective of the neighbors; and (5) we don't know anything about the spa and whether it is permanent.
 Mr. Franks said it is a permanent structure and below ground.  She will take pictures of their driveway.  It's a 10x10 spa with a 2' patio around it.    She wants to look at other spas in town.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld stated that we approve what goes into the ground and we have to be specific:  what materials?  How far from the property line, etc.?

MR. TYLER MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION PENDING RECEIPT OF MORE DETAILS ON THE SPA.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Julio Valenzuela - Remodeling

 The applicant wishes to remove the siding, scrape, prime, and repaint the exterior and he will replace any damage uncovered.  He will also restore the roof, which will be slate colored asphalt; maybe the porch roof will be copper.  They will take out the rear steps and return the house to a single family dwelling.  They will strip the paint off the columns.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-123.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Lisa McKivergin, 224 East College Street -Remodeling
 Mr. Strayer said that after extensive repair, they wish to turn the five-apartment building into four condos.  He talked to the Law Director and found it a nonconforming use now.  It will still be nonconforming, and the property will have a property association though the condos will be owned by the owners. 
 Ms. McKivergin said the carriage house will be of board and batten and will harmonize with the house.  There will be new windows more in proportion to the front of the house.  They started ripping off the siding to see what they had and it will need lots of patching but it's in pretty good shape.    There will be three condos in front and one in back.
 Mr. Mitchell asked about the 6 over 6 windows, and discussion ensued about all the different types of windows.  Mr. Riffle thought the 6 over 6 gives it a character that makes that part of the house stand out.    Ms. McKivergin said there is a variety but they will harmonize.  The trim will match, and the siding will match too. 
 Mr. Riffle would like to see the most effort put into the central area.  With the roof renovation, try to make the renovation as close to the original as possible with the other pieces added on.  As long as the central part is historically accurate, it's not as important for the ells.  Do 6 over 6 in the center and let the3 other pieces do what they want to do.  Let it all be honest.
Mr. Riffle added that we can approve with the condition that the applicant bring us a drawing of what it will look like.  The 6' fence will be OK. 
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-127 WITH THE PROVISIONS THAT (1) WE WILL HAVE A REVISED DRAWING OF THE WINDOWS ON THE FRONT AND THEY WILL BE REVIEWED BY MR. STRAYER, MR. TYLER, AND MR. BURRISS; (2) APPROVAL OF FENCE DESIGN AS PRESENTED TO US TONIGHT WITH THE PROVISION THAT MR. STRAYER WILL APPROVE THE PLANS.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Unizan Bank, 222 East Broadway - Drive Through 
 Bill Ryan, contractor, said the reason for the new drive-through is to keep up with new technology.  The new ATM is larger and requires a larger enclosure.  There will be no modification of the concrete, and the color will be Unizan blue.  It is back-lit and the lights point to the building.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-133 FOR NEW ATM WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE COLOR OF THE NEW ATM WILL BE OF UNIZAN BLUE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Kevin Reiner, 540 W. Broadway - Modification
 After having received approval for a greenhouse, Mr. Reiner wants to change from a greenhouse to an addition to the house for a family room and dining area on the back of the house.    The footprint will become a little smaller. 
Consensus of the group liked the plan
Denison University - Renovation
 Art Chonko introduced Jack Potter, architect, who provided plans for the conceptual, but doable, renovation as a gateway to campus.  There will be a potential studio above the power plant.  There will be a public gallery and improved access uphill. There's potential for pedestrian mall on College Street as a central gathering place with the street closed off from cars between Mulberry and Plum for most of the year.  They will put in an elevator. The copper finish exterior will turn green.  Outdoor area will have space for music and performance. Room for ceramics and kiln is planned.  The new additions are separated by glass ceiling and walls, which will create a different look at night for artists and will show like a beacon.  They will make a new entrance.  They will need to do fund-raising.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld liked the plans, and Mr. Mitchell recommends they consult with the Fire Department about access.  Mr. Potter wants to make it safe with access from this road and this driveway.
Finding of Fact:  MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS 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 AUGUST 22, 2005.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:  9:44 p.m.
Next Meetings:  September 12 and September 26
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Planning Minutes 8/8/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 8, 2005
Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tom Mitchell, Tym Tyler
Members Absent:  Tim Riffle (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld
Visitors Present:  John Cassell, Robin Lantz, Marta Contini, Jerry Martin, Sharon Sellito, Pam Powell, Rodger Kessler                       Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of July 11: Postponed until next meeting.
New Business:
Marlina Hammond Keynes, 537 Jones Road - sign
 For an art display by Paul Hamilton at the Bryn Du October 23-November 5, the applicant is seeking signage for 4 identical one-sided 5x8 signs at (1) Main and Broadway, (2) Granville Inn, (3 and 4) two signs at Bryn Du. The Village Manager recommended that there be no sign at The Granville Inn. GPC preferred only one sign at Bryn Du.
 The color plan was discussed and it was decided to limit it to two colors with darker color as background and white lettering.  All lettering must be consistent in fonts.  Rodger Kessler agreed that this can be accomplished.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-119 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT: (1) BACKGROUND COLOR BE BLUE AND THE LETTERING BE YELLOW AS SHOWN ON BACKGROUND ON APPLICATION; (2) ALL FONTS ARE TO BE CONSISTENT; (3) THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND KEITH MYERS WILL WORK WITH THE DESIGNER TO COME UP WITH A SUITABLE DESIGN; (4) THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE SIGN AT BRYN DU; AND (5) THERE WILL BE NO SIGN AT THE GRANVILLE INN.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Brews, 116 East Broadway - Awning
 Jerry Martin is applying for a one-color awning over the staircase to protect the stairs from snow and ice. He will apply for signage later.
 Mr. Burriss asked whether the material in the awning is dense enough to prohibit light from bleeding through, and Mr. Martin thought that would be the case.   
 GPC would like the Village Planner and Jack Burris to have a look at the final details of the awning.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-112 WITH THE CONDITION THAT FINAL DESIGN FOR AWNING AND ANY CHANGES TO THE STAIRCASE WILL BE REVIEWED BY MR. BURRISS AND THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Thrift Shop, 454 S. Main Street - sign

 The applicants wish a temporary 8 sq.ft. sidewalk sign announcing the hours of operation.  It will be displayed only when shop is open and for special events.
 Marta Contini said it will be only displayed late August to the end of June and will be located between the sidewalk and the wall.
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE FOR A TEMPORARY SIGN.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

HER Realtors, 130 N. Prospect St. - Change of Use

 Pamela Power stated it will not be an office manned with employees; all their agents work from home and they just need a place where they can pick up materials.  The change of use would be from retail to office space.
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-117 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
HER Realtors, 130 N. Prospect St. - wall sign 

 The realty company is requesting a sign for the above business.  There is a projecting sign in existence for their former location, and the proposal is to tack it onto the wall with their name and new address. 
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-117 FOR WALL SIGN AS SUBMITTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
HER Realtors, 130 N Prospect St, - Sidewalk sign
 The above applicants also wish a sidewalk sign with the same information, to be placed between the Pizza Shop and the curb. It would be up about 3-4 hours a day and on Saturday. 
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-118 FOR SIDEWALK SIGN AS SUBMITTED.  MR MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
First Federal Savings, 209 East College St. - fence
The applicant has requested tabling application.
MR. TYLER MOVED TO TABLE 05-120 FOR A FENCE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Schools - Freestanding Signs
The application is for 2 signs:  (1) at the high school driveway and (2) at the Middle School driveway.  (Institutional District does not have any sign requirements.) 
Mr. Kessler said they will not light them.  They will use reflective vinyl for lettering.  Mr. Strayer wants the two signs to be of consistent design.
 Mr. Tyler wants another sign saying "Granville Intermediate School ½ miles" added to the high school sign. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-121 FOR FREE-STANDING SIGNS WITH THE OPTION OF ADDING SIGNAGE INFORMATION FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A,B,C,D,E,F, AND 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 8, 2005.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:  7:30 p.m.
Next Meetings:  August 22 (Mr. Burriss will be absent) and September 12
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Planning Minutes 7/11/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 11, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Tim Riffle (Chair), Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Carl Wilkenfeld 
Members Absent Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tym Tyler
Visitors Present: Mildred Moss, Andre Ozolins
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of June 13:  Page 1, under Shapiro, change MR. RIFFLE SECONDED TO MR. MITCHELL SECONDED 
June 27:  Page 2, line 10, change MR. TYLER MITCHELL TO MR. TYLER.
Under B.Hammond, change MR. RIFFLE SECONDED TO MR. TYLER SECONDED.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE JUNE 13 AND JUNE 27 MINUTES.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

As a follow-up to the Minutes, Mr. Strayer agreed to let the Catholic Church sign stand, inasmuch as the sign was a donation, but it can only stay up for one year.

New Business:

William Lavender, Westgate Drive - temporary sign

 Tina Lavender's real estate sign for Keller Williams will replace the Shai Development sign but smaller than the previous one.  For temporary signs, GPC makes their own requirements.  It will be 70' from the road.  (It's in TCOC, not AROD as on the Staff Report.)
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-101 AS SUBMITTED. MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Richard Van Meter, 110 East Elm Street - Signs

 The applicant wishes several signs for the new businesses upstairs:  (1) post sign on wall; (2) post sign on Elm; (3) wall sign; (4) 3 tag signs upstairs.  We have approved several of these wall and tag signs before.  They will have two colors and fit within the code.
 
MR. MITCHEL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-105.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Andre Ozolins, 115 North Prospect - awning

 For the new business at this location, the applicant wishes to change the color of the existing awning to tan.  It will be tan linen with red lettering and trim.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-107 FOR AN AWNING CHANGE AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Andre Ozolins, 115 North Prospect - signs

 The same applicant wishes to erect a projecting sign and a canopy sign on the awning.  They can only have one other color besides red, and members determined that white is not a color. Though this item is still under discussion.  Both signs meet the code.  They will be tan with red lettering and trim.  The color (PMS 199) is more red than orange.   

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR 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 JULY 11, 2005.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:    July 25 meeting is cancelled.
 Following meeting: August 8
Adjournment:   7:18 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 6/27/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 27, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Tim Riffle (Chair), Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Tym Tyler, Carl Wilkenfeld 
Members Absent Jack Burriss (Vice Chair)
Visitors Present: Brian Miller, Scott Brown, Mildred Moss, Mike Frazier, Barbara Hammond, Jim Cooper, Greg Ream, Susan Kramer
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of June 13:  Postponed until next meeting. 
Old Business:

Buttondown Investments, 226 East Broadway - sign

 At the last meeting the application was postponed for lack of a quorum.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE, MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 Rather than the "Automatic Denial" under consideration for awhile, the members discussed the criteria for temporary signs; and as GPC has discretion to approve them, the overlarge sign was approved but only until Mr. Burriss gets his permanent hanging sign. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-083 FOR A TEMPORARY SIGN.  MR. WIKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

South Cherry Valley - New Building

 Application tabled since Speedway will need to do new traffic and engineering studies.

Village of Granville - Front Doors
Application was tabled at applicant's request.

New Business:

Innocent Wodzisz, 136 East Broadway -Change of Use
 
 The applicant wishes a change of use from an office to an art studio with retail capacity.  It's above the bank building and is a permitted use.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-090 AS PRESENTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 The application states "change of use from professional office to retail use," but it is really for an art studio.  Mr. Strayer said the studio will have low traffic.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-090 AS A CHANGE OF USE TO AN ART STUDIO.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Taylor Drug Store, 200 East Broadway - Modification

 Greg Ream wishes a different style for his drive-up window. This one would have a sliding glass window to conserve space.  There will be a pair of bollards. 
MR. MITCHEL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-095 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE BOLLARDS BE INSTALLED AS PER THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

St. Edwards Catholic Church, 785 Newark-Granville Road - Temporary Sign

 The church wishes a sidewalk sign advertising their Preschool. It is similar to sidewalk signs we have approved in the past.  Members discussed the color scheme of the board, which seems to have 5 colors.  The sign would be up for a maximum of a year; then they would have to reapply. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted them to modify and reduce the number of the colors.  The others agreed. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-095 FOR A TEMPORARY SIGN WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT THEY REDUCE THE COLORS TO THREE.  THE VILLAGE PLANNER WILL HAVE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE COLORS THAT ARE MORE EARTH-TONE RELATED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Scott Brown, 1229 South Cherry Valley Road - Sign

 The applicant wishes to erect an 18 sq.ft. free-standing sign for his Red Vette Printing business in a building which used to be a residential home.
Mr. Brown said it is to be "OSU red" with vinyl letters and white wood posts.

MR. TYLER  MOVED TYO APPROVE 05-096 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ellen Cooper, 334 West Maple Street - Fence

 The applicant wishes to extend the fence already in place on two sides of her property to totally enclose the yard.  The addition will match the existing white picket fence all around with same color and materials.

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

B. Hammond Interiors, 123 East Broadway - Awning

 Ms. Hammond wishes to extend her store into the Coldwell Banker office next door.  It will have a separate awning, with "Babs' Closet" on the drop.  It will be the same style as her other black one.  It will look like a continuous awning and will cover up the A.C. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 
 
Granville Public Library, 212 East Elm Street - Addition

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

 Mike Frazier, President of the Library Board, introduced Jack Hedge from the Design Group.  Mr. Hedge's comments are summarized here:  it will be built out about 2' from the Library ~ with  a sloping shingle roof resembling slate ~ mechanicals on roof ~ a hollowed-out area for the children's section ~ they will put brick up the building to add depth ~ it will look like a series of little buildings along the alley ~they will remove the existing entrance and keep the arch window and bring it out ~ replace it with an aluminum clad window ~ canopy will be kept but they will put a balustrade around it above the entrance ~ they will not open up the front door ~there will be low bushes at the entrance ~ add sandstone on the south ~ add a recessed area with grass for the sunken garden in the children's area ~ an overhang will screen the summer sun ~ they will take the red stained glass windows and move them downstairs; it's a secure area with railing around the top  ~ there will be a walk with pavers  ~ self check-out ~ grand stairway ~ a grille will separate the meeting room from the library so it can be secured and stay open longer ~ add another section with plants and benches as per the garden club ~ they will take out tube lights and add lights similar to the ones in this room ~ entrance will have different colored pavers ~ landscaping and ornamental trees ~ service sidewalk in the rear. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked how long the library would be closed, and Mr. Frazier said there will be some inconvenience and dust, but they want to keep it open. It will be done in phases.  The addition will be built without disturbing the existing library, then they will move the library into the new section so they can work on the old library.  They hope to open the bids in the fall and get the foundation in by December.  Demolition of the Pyle House will start next week.  They have talked to the fire department.  Mr. Hedge showed a sample of the sandstone.  There will be some stucco and trim will be white. 
 Mr. Strayer wants to be sure the Tree and Landscape Committee has a look at the landscaping.   There will be two parking spaces provided. 
 Mr. Riffle felt the window styles were out of rhythm on the first floor east façade.  Mr. Hedge said there will not be windows on the stairs so as not to emphasize the depth. Members discussed discrepancy of window sizes, and Mr. Hedge said to make windows alike is to sacrifice shelf space.  Mr. Frazier said they tried to balance inside function with outside beauty. 
 Susan Kramer, from the Board, said they are going to be concerned about maximizing function of the inside of the library, and shelf space is critical. Mr. Frazier said they would lose space for 430 books if they make windows bigger.  Mr. Riffle suggested adding spandrel glass, giving the appearance of a window but allowing space inside. 
 GPC members were concerned about the 5 windows across the bottom east side.

MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPROVE 05-097 WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL WINDOWS ON THE EAST ELEVATION WILL LOOK THE SAME SIZE AS IN WINDOW NO. A.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS A THROUGH 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 JUNE 27, 2005.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:   July 11 (Mr. Tyler will be absent) and July 25
Adjournment:   8:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 6/13/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 13, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle (Chair), Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe
Members Absent: Tym Tyler, Carl Wilkenfeld 
Visitors Present:  Michael Dager, Ray and Sherry Paprocki, Lindsay Cole, Carol Whitt, Sharon Sellito, David Horning, Joe Gardner
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of May 23, 2005:  Two-thirds of the way down Page 1, change Mr. Riffle to Mr. Tyler.  Also third line up. 
Page 3; change Father Anke to Father Enke in line 5.
Halfway down, change Mr. Tyler to "Mr. Riffle thought that since there is a lot of confusion,"   Page 5, Line 10 and Line15, change Mr. Tyler to Mr. Riffle.
Page 6, line 3 add "Rt. 37 intersection."
Page 6, line 8, change 47% to 40%.
Page 7; change Mr. Gorey to Mr. Gorry.  (Mr. Tyler will be absent)
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street - Site Improvements
Application was tabled until BZBA grants approval of the variance.  Sharon Sellito was very concerned about the illegal drainage pipe running onto her property and the fact that he has already exceeded the 50% lot coverage.

South Cherry Valley - New Building

 Application tabled since Speedway will need to do new traffic and engineering studies.

Village of Granville - Front Doors
Application was tabled at applicant's request.

New Business:

Harvey Shapiro, 329 East College Street - Fence
 
 The owners wish to make improvements to the house:  (1) add wood privacy fence to match side fence; (2) add hand rail at front door; (3) add driveway gate; and (4) add cupola on garage.
Mr. Dager explained that the sides of the fence are already there, but they want a fence to enclose the pets.  It will be a wood 72" fence and will match the others in style and stain.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-074 AS PRESENTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Anderson Layman Co., 80 Westgate Drive - Temporary Sign


This will be a standard for sale sign on the building side, facing Rt. 16.  This is the first time such a sign will be put on the side of a building, but GPC can approve it.  The sign will be there for a year or until they make the sale. 
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-078 WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT REMAINS IN PLACE FOR ONLY ONE YEAR.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

David Horning, 310 Pearl Street - Rebuilding

   The house suffered much damage in the ice storm, and part of it has been demolished.  Now he wishes to replace the one-car garage with a 20'x20' two-car garage. The driveway will remain gravel. The second floor of the house will be replaced, and the aluminum siding will be replaced with fiber cement clapboard siding.  The second floor footprint will be expanded by 8'.  Replacements will be consistent with the house and with the neighborhood.  Joe Gardner noted that the garage will be expanded inward into the yard.  The roof will be 30-year dimensional shingles.
 Mr. Mitchell asked about windows, and they will be 4 over 4.   
 Mr. Burriss asked about the current porch posts, and Mr. Gardner said they will retain them if they can be salvaged, but he doubts it.  Mr. Burriss stated that the porch is the only significant part of the house architecturally.  Mr. Gardner said that for trim there will be corner boards, one wrap piece.  This will be consistent on the garage as well.  Mr. Burriss asked about window replacement, and Mr. Gardner said yes, and he explained other windows in the house.  Mr. Burriss wishes to see as much consistency as possible.  Ms. O'Keefe asked if windows have to be replaced, must they be replaced with 4 over 4?  It might not be possible, given the internal structure around the windows, but the applicant should save the windows if possible.
 Mr. Burriss thinks the proposed expansion is appropriate and will not detract from the house.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-079 WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT: (1) RAILING OPENS AT CENTER OF FRONT DOOR; (2) SAVE OR DUPLICATE PORCH COLUMNS; (3) FIRST FLOOR WINDOWS ARE TO BE SAVED, BUT IF REPLACED, USE 4 OVER 4 LIKE THE SECOND FLOOR AND KEEP THEM THE SAME SIZE; (4) FIBER CEMENT SIDING; AND (5) ADD CORNER TRIM BOARD.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Cheryl Paprocki, 311 East College Street - Deck

 The applicant wishes to add a 14'x8' deck at the rear, 9" off the ground and reached by three steps out of French doors.  She is considering adding benches.  It will be centered on the French doors. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TYO APPROVE 05-081 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Carol Whitt, 139 West Maple Street - Addition

 The applicant wishes a 16'x22' addition to the rear of the house next to the carport with a deck on top with French doors leading out.
 Mr. Mitchell asked about the carport and was told there are 3 posts on the carport and the last post will be used in the wall for the addition.  They will use the foundation of the carport.  There is an existing door in the basement and the addition will be brought out from that door.
 Mr. Burriss asked whether the roof deck and trellis we approved earlier is above this and was told by Linda Cole Yes, and the railing on second-floor roof deck will be consistent with the post that was there. They are not adding any trellises.
 Mr. Burriss asked about window details, and Ms. Cole provided information on double-hung windows on first floor, second floor and French door.  No other windows will be added.  There is a mixture of windows on the house now; most are 8 over 8 but these are 12 over 12
 Mr. Burriss asked about the concrete block and, since it's a steep lot, asked how much will be used.  Ms. Cole said they will stay in the upper lot.  There is a small drop-off before you get to the big drop-off.  The wall will come out 34' from where the carport is and there will be 3'4 of exposure.  They will match the block as closely as they can.  The top will be a rubber roof with soffits.  They will probably add a deck.  Stained glass art work will be added.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-082 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) PROPOSED RAILING WILL MATCH EXISTING ROOF RAILING DETAIL; (2) THERE WILL BE AN APPROPRIATE OVERHANG DETAIL TO CORRESPOND WITH EXISTING OVERHANG DETAIL ON THE STRUCTURE; (3) FOUNDATION BLOCK WILL MATCH AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE THE EXISTING BLOCK; (4) HEIGHT OF CARPORT POSTS WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING HORIZONTAL LINE ESTABLISHED BY THE HEIGHT OF THE CARPORT; (5) TRIM DETAIL AROUND FRENCH DOOR WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DETAIL ON THE HOUSE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Buttondown investments, 226 East Broadway - sign

 When Mr. Burriss necessarily recused himself from his application, there was no quorum; therefore, the application had to be tabled.  Good-natured ribbing naturally occurred, but Mr. Strayer agreed to give Jack Burriss temporary approval to hang his temporary sign.
 
Maija Bamford, 212 East Elm Street - Fence

  With expansion of the library, the applicants want a taller fence to screen it.  She is not here tonight, but it fell within the code.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-084 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dick Van Meter, 136 South Main Street - sign

 For the new tenant, the applicant is requesting an 18"x48" sign which will hang on a metal bracket.  It will match the sign on the other side.  The sign now is 22½ x 1½ free standing.  Even though bigger, this one would fit in the criteria.  The applicant is not here tonight.
 Mr. Burriss noted that we try to keep signs of a consistent width, and this one could be condensed.  A sign of 48" is too wide and would not fit others in the neighborhood scale wise.     

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-0895 WITH THE CONDITION THAT IF ACCEPTABLE TO APPLICANT, IT IS NO LONGER THAN 32" WIDE AND IF THAT IS ACCEPTABLE, THEN THE VILLAGE PLANNER IS AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE IT.  ALL OTHER DETAILS ARE AS SUBMITTED, AND THE POST WILL BE IN THE SAME LOCATION ON SOUTH MAIN AS THE EXISTING SIGN.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Business:  AROD changes. 

Two major changes are being considered for the AROD:  (1) extending boundaries and (2) clarifying the definition of "massing," or looking at a building in relation to its neighbors instead of the district as a whole.  Mr. Strayer said this creates more work for us because of the wider district to consider.  Things in process do not count, only applications that come in after it goes into effect.  This is subject to interpretation, and it is meant to be a little open-ended.  Mr. Burriss thinks it is a good additional tool. 
 Mr. Mitchell asked what is the logic for stopping the district where proposed, and Mr. Strayer said you have to have a significant architectural style in the neighborhood before you can include it inn architectural review.  West Maple did not feel to have enough consistency in styles to be included. 
Ms. O'Keefe noted that neighbors have to be notified when a big addition is proposed, and this would give them a say in the project. 
Structural Demolition will be put in a separate chapter.  This would give us power to grant demolition permits.  If we need to tear down houses, at least we have the ability to look at what future plans are suggested for the area before we approve demolition permits. 
New Zoning Fees are proposed.

Finding of Fact:  MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,C,D,E, AND 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 JUNE 8, 2005.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:  June 27 and July 11 (Mr. Burriss will be absent)
Adjournment:   8:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 5/23/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 23, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle (Chair), Tym Tyler, Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, and Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: none 
Visitors Present:  Please see attached list of 42 names.
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of May 9, 2005:  MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street - Site Improvements
Application was tabled at applicant's request.

Village of Granville - Front Doors
Application was tabled at applicant's request.

New Business:

Sharon Sellito, 224 South Prospect Street - Fence
 At our last meeting we approved a similar application for a fence 2' from the neighbor's property.  GPC approved it but later Ms. Sellito asked for it to be on the side and rear lot lines because this would preclude trees being cut down.  Having a 2' gap would attract undesirable matter.   She also is asking for a 48" picket fence rather than a 72" fence. 
 Barbara Franks, neighbor and wife of Dan Rogers, said she and Ms. Sellito have talked and come to a decision that should be better if instead of running the fence along the back line, she would tie in to the existing fence. Mr. Rogers will repair the hole in the fence, and he will extend the fence down to the property line.  Ms. Sellito will not have a fence along the back yard.  Ms. Sellito said she will do the sides and tie it in with the Rogers fence, so it would have to go to the lot line. If a need arises for a fence along the rear lot line, Ms. Sellito will come back to GPC.  Ms. Franks said there is a 72" fence along the back property line.
 Ms. Franks was concerned about the fact that with both fences abutting each other, painting the inside would be difficult.  Joe Hickman had told Ms. Sellito that in order to maintain the fence, it must be taken down. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-068 AS PRESENTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Borough Company, 233 South Mulberry - Modification

 Originally approved as windows, the modified plan specifies a chimney and fireplace, since the applicant feels the view of a solid wall is undesirable.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-069 FOR MODIFICATION.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Golf Course Company, Onnen Court

 This application continues the road into the cul-de-sac and includes 5 new lots. The engineer has filed his report, and was concerned about water and sewer and the need for sidewalks, but these things can be worked out.  The Fire Department has concerns with the design and size of the center island in the cul-de-sac and would like to prevent parking in the cul-de-sac. 
 Ms. O'Keefe wanted to know more about the parking restrictions and was told visitors could park in driveways.  She asked why couldn't the road be configured to allow parking and fire trucks.  Mr. Mitchell thought there should be ample room for cars and fire trucks the way it is.  You don't want to see such a wide expanse of concrete in a subdivision.  Also, parked cars have a traffic-calming effect. 
 Bob Kent introduced Jeff Carr, Engineer, who said if they have to do away with the island they can do so.  (Mr. Burriss wants the island left in.) This is a 27' cul-de-sac, wider than other cul-de-sacs and exceeding fire department standards.  Mr. Strayer said our Fire Department has their own standards.  Mr. Carr said they can decrease the center island and allow parking on one side only and still get the width the fire department demands.  Mr. Carr said they can work with the engineer on this.
 GPC members would like to see a copy of the Fire Department standards.
  Mr. Strayer said there is a sidewalk extension on the east which can be continued.  Bob Kent said when the plat was laid out there were no sidewalks in the circle because there were only 5 houses there.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-070 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) WORKING OUT SAFETY STANDARDS WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; (2) SIZE OF THE ISLAND; (3) APPROVAL OF THE 7 ITEMS FROM BYRD AND BULL'S LIST CAN BE WORKED OUT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  

Fairfax Homes, 931 Newark-Granville Road - Preliminary Plat

 {Mr. Burriss recused himself from this application.}
 A preliminary plat for Tall Pines Subdivision was presented before a group of about 40 concerned citizens.  The traffic study has not been approved by the Village Traffic Engineer, and the Fire Department has concerns over the number and location of hydrants.  The Village Engineer has not submitted his recommendations.  Developer Harold Lieberman wishes to build 17 home sites on 11.4 acres. The road would be private with two 10' lanes and detention basin in the middle of the cul-de-sac with 50' radius.  Water and sewer lines would be extended to the property. Ms. O'Keefe didn't see how the traffic report could be of any help to us if incomplete.  Apparently there were some errors. The Law Director said the Traffic Engineer said it was basically satisfactory but if other information is needed, he should get it.  He will go on record as saying he is satisfied with the conclusion. 
 Mr. Strayer said the Fire Department would like to see more hydrants.  They were also concerned about the detention pond in the road.  They need 20' minimum and these are 12' lanes.  Byrd and Bull is a civil engineer, not a traffic engineer.
 Ms. O'Keefe wondered whose judgment are we to take.   The Law Director said GPC does not approve preliminary plats unless all information is there and traffic does not increase to the detriment of the community.  GPC makes this decision. 
 Alan Voris, Traffic Engineer, said they prepared an abbreviated study.  They did a turn-lane analysis but did not provide a report.  They are going to hire a third party consultant to do an imperial study.  They have not seen a report from the Fire Department, but they will address all their concerns.  He would ask for conditional approval based on all these questions.

 The Chairman opened the discussion to the floor, limiting comments to 5 minutes.

 Att. Steve Mershon spoke on behalf of 5 people and said this plan does not comply with Village Codes. 
 Virginia Abbott felt a fire truck could not get in there.  She would like to know more about the original covenants, especially where it said the lots were not to be subdivided.
 Father Enke said Section 1 of the Plat Book provides that no more than one house shall be on any lot.  These rights run with the land.  Restrictions shall only be made with the consent of the residents.  No more than one house can be built on any lot without our consent.   We will not consent to lift restrictions on the unbuilt lots.
 The Village Planner said restrictive covenants were not approved by the village as part of the original plans, so this would be a civil case between the residents.  The Village did not approve covenants along with the subdivision.  It needs to be approved by the people before it can be sent to the county.
 The law director said that is correct.  There would be conditions we would require. Nothing in our code approves subdivisions of lots subject to deed restrictions.  You cannot plat over a plat; you have to go through Common Pleas Court.  The burden is upon the developer.  There is a vacation chapter. 
 Ms. O'Keefe said this agreement was made in good faith, and there are deed restrictions in contracts.  The developer is asking to break this.
 The Law Director said we do not interpret deed restrictions as a village and GPC.  This is between the parties involved.  GPC can turn this down or table it because we need to determine whether they are in fact required to go through a plat vacation.  We need to determine whether those laws apply to us as a municipality and whether the deed restrictions are something we need to look at.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked whether a municipality can negate a private contract by its action, and the Law Director said as a general rule, No, because they can't abrogate contracts.  The contract is not binding on GPC.  We are not enforcing the contract and are more concerned about private rights.  If this meets our code, we can approve it.
 Mr. Mitchell thought they may need to go through a different procedure for vacating the existing document.   The Law Director said if we approve it, we would have two plats on record.  We can table this and let the Law Department look at it.
 Mr. Riffle thought that since there is a lot of confusion, we can't really apply this.
 Mr. Mitchell said we can table this and go on record saying this is how we should proceed.
 Mr. Gorry, Law Director, said the legal issue is that the statute has a procedure for vacating a plat.  Our policy has always been that a plat on top of a plat invites problems.
 Cathy Evans's driveway is right across the street and she wants to see this denied.
 Mr. Tyler thought we could approve or table the application and can base our decision on what the code allows us to do.  He is firmly against it.
 David Goldblatt said Newark-Granville is already a bumper to bumper bypass and that is incompatible with the bike path.  A lot of walkers and bikers use the sidewalk. The Village should take a larger view of things not just this particular situation.
 Maureen Severson lives east of this site and the noise problems and tree removals concern her.  Her house would be devalued by this project.
 Kathleen D. is concerned with safety for her children and the difficulty now of making left turns.  This project is not acceptable to her.
 Susan Lithauser wondered when Newark-Granville went from a beautiful residential street to a bypass?  The traffic gets busier and busier, and she wondered what precedent are we setting. 
 Steve Tunicliff thought Newark-Granville was turning into a freeway instead of a residential street.  Properties are becoming devalued.
 Dena McKinley is concerned that several neighbors provided the covenants to the village over a week ago and she would have thought these things would have been looked at before this.  The ½-acre lots are inconsistent.  School enrollment will increase by another classroom.  We are fighting this on the outskirts of the village, but we should not have to fight it within the village.  Traffic got worse after River Road closed.  There are drainage issues.  Water flows down to Howard Dellard's home.  If they grade the land away, he will get the runoff.  Tall pine trees will be removed.  This subdivision has been laid out with the specific intent to circumvent the original plan. 
 Regina Cenevera agrees.  She lives directly in front of Howard Dellard, and when she bought her home, she was told about the covenants and that only 3 extra homes could be built down there.  They don't want to lose the natural beauty and set a precedent. 
 Jim Siegel, from Tree and Landscape Committee, has not had an opportunity to look at the plat and does not know how much weight this would carry, but the committee needs an opportunity to look at it soon.
 Bruce Kramer thought it would be irresponsible to tell a person they can buy a house and be safe, but streets are not wide enough to accommodate a fire truck.  To have told people they would only build three houses is irresponsible.  The increased traffic would bring safety issues.
 Brian Barkett lives on Denison Drive and when they bought, they were not told there would be possibly 17 more homes built.  The traffic is not difficult but left-turn lanes can be hard.  Lots of people walk on Denison Drive to get to the bike path. He feels the quality of life will be destroyed in this town with this development.  All over the county we see profits of capitalism at the expense of social values.
 Barbara Franks brought up the lot coverage and wondered how they can get 17 houses on three lots and not exceed lot coverage.  Granville is a small town and the people who live in it run it.  People here tonight do not want the development, only the ones who are developing it do. 
 Tim Hughes was concerned about the private road, which does not have to meet village standards.  A few years down the road it will need to be resurfaced and sewer issues will arise.  They will want the village to take the road over, and he does not want the burden.  He thinks the property should be kept as is.  Two or three can be built on the lots, and that would be plenty.  Schools would be impacted-34 kids, 34 cars.  He questioned the timing of the traffic study. Regarding the restrictive covenants (dedication of protective covenants), these do not hold weight in the village, but they are protective to the property owner.
 Being in real estate, Tim Hughes looks at protective covenants and shows them to purchasers.  Now he is glad he is not the realtor who sold Father Enke's house to him and told him there would be three houses and all of a sudden there are 17 proposed houses.   This is not fair.
 Dina McKinley, neighbor, is opposed to the plat.
 Ann Gillie, from Newark-Granville Road, agrees with everyone.  They purchased the house because of the location and the beauty of the area.  They redid the house and are concerned about property values in the neighborhood.
 Craig Henry said the spirit of the authors of the covenants has been violated. This embraces what Granville was trying to establish in acquisition of the property.  The traffic has increased.  Those who reside in Granville should weigh more heavily than the desires of one developer. 
 James Adam Conway's property abuts the applicant's property. He has about 8 acres and is concerned about the property values and the increase in numbers of children, safety, and traffic issues.
 Scott Emery thanked all of the GPC members.  This is a code issue for you but when it does come to a vote he hopes it will be denied.
 Ron Davis, from Bryn Du feels the restrictive covenants are there and should be adhered to.
 Steve Mershon, Att., said it's not GPC's job to sue the developer.  He wants to put out of their mind that if something is minimally compliant, they have to pass it.  But this development plat does not comply with your code.  They got by by saying it's a private lane, not a street.  But a street includes both, and when they took the plat they said it had to be 90' width.  But the code calls for 90' on a city street.  In five years they will come back asking for a city street. ~ The developer is trying to put in streets that do not meet your requirements for not less than 60' in right of way.  This one is only 50' if you say that the 8' gravel drive is required in the ROW.  The developer can go for a variance but they have not. ~ Road width 26' with parking is required in the code.  They propose 10' width and no parking, so the fire department cannot get in. ~ The developer wants to avoid putting in sidewalks and street lighting and planting tree lawns.  It's cheaper if you don't have to put in sidewalks, and the cost is borne by the public.  It's not right to transfer development rights from the developer to the public.  Nothing in your code says that private roads should be developed to cover standards from city streets and private roads. ~Your driveway has to be 300' from a public intersection, but this is 160' from Denison Drive.  Ninety feet frontage is required on a public ROW. ~ They are supposed to disclose common areas and design the plan to preserve natural vegetative areas, but they are cutting down the tall pines.  This is not consistent with public welfare (1113.03). ~ The traffic study timing was not accurate, and they said there was no construction going on, but that is not true. ~ Access management requires minimum location between driveways, and this is not followed (1117.02). ~   It is not GPC's obligation to enforce covenants but what is fair to the property owner.  By denying this application you are not harming the developer.  Mr. Mershon would ask that GPC either deny the application or ask the developer to withdraw it rather than just table it.
Mr. Riffle closed the session to public comments.

Mr. Riffle had a few comments:  He questioned the price of the $500,000 houses; ~ he wants to preserve the tall pines; ~ this is on a state route and the only other developable property is to the east; ~ we will accommodate the fire department; ~ the road is a county road but not private; ~ his idea is not to segregate the community ~ he would like to talk with everybody and not make enemies.
Mr. Riffle does not feel comfortable with all the traffic information provided and not knowing how legally we stand on this. 
 The Law Director requested tabling.  These restrictions are covenants and we assumed this plat after it was recorded in the township.  So now we have a bit more complicated situation.  This is a private road.  The plat does not accept dedication of the road.  He needs to read the covenants and see what is in there.  It does say there should be one house per lot.  The village assumed the covenants.  That complicates the situation because it was his understanding the plat did not.
 Mr. Mitchell said if we assume the covenants into the village ordinances, doesn't that restrict us from approving the plat?
 Mr. Gorry said it may not.  He has to read these and determine what they say.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said if there are GPC members who think there are enough other issues tonight to vote, is Mr. Gorry suggesting we do not do that?  Yes, he wants to study the covenants some more.  If this plan violates subdivision regulations, you cannot approve it.
 Mr. Mitchell thought the issue of private vs. public road was significant, and he has not heard the developer suggest he would be willing to make it a public road.
 Ms. O'Keefe said will these people be informed with enough time to come to another meeting?    Mr. Gorry said if you want public notices for your next meeting; tell the village what you want us to say.  Mr. Wilkenfeld would like everyone on the list notified and all the names on the petition that was delivered tonight.   This will be in the Public Notices in the Sentinel, in the Library, and outside the village office.  Assuming this will be on the agenda June 13, there is no need for mailed notices.  Given the absence of one member on the 13th, the developer asked for a hearing on June 27.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION UNTIL JUNE 27.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mecham and Apel, South Cherry Valley Road - New building

For a multi-use single-story building next to Bob Evans, the applicant is seeking a 12,000 sq.ft. retail area.  The engineer was unable to submit a report on the existing plat.  The traffic engineer called Mr. Strayer and was unable to submit his report, but he indicated this application was not thorough and complete and did not include the current traffic volume nor the entire area and intersection.  The traffic study was not in accordance with village guidelines.  Mr. Strayer said we do want to meet with the developer and discuss a new traffic study.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said we discussed the LCAT report and the report to Village Council at the April meeting.  The other thing he would like to see is views of the property more than just the aerial view.  There are significant trees out there.
Mr. Strayer indicated LCAT said: (1) the first is a permanent fix to the intersection, a compact diamond similar to Route 37 intersection.  The state has neither funded the study nor construction.  It should be completed by 2025 or before; (2) another project as a temporary fix is a way to make a study with a no-build scenario, no left turns, and continuous flow intersection.  Then they will move forward.  This is temporary until financing can be found.  This intersection is below ODOT acceptable standards.  Traffic is increasing rapidly even now.
Mr. Riffle asked about lot coverage and was told by Mr. Strayer it is 47.5% and the requirement is 40%.  We are granting a density bonus up to 5% but we would still need a variance or find a way to reduce that.
After Mr. Mitchell asked if they were going for a variance, Mike Hughes said they would try to find a way to reduce it to 5%.  To make this work better and increase maneuverability, a variance probably would have to be granted.
Mr. Riffle said we still need a variance and traffic study, and Mr. Wilkenfeld still has concerns about the vegetation.
Mr. Hughes showed the trees to be removed.  They will keep trees on the south end and will take down trees along Rt. 16.  On the east there will be a retention pond so trees will remain.
Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested having more signs and more trees and Mr. Tyler wants fewer signs and keep in just a few trees. 
Mr. Burris said in our work session he had strong feelings of a three-dimensional relationship, that it be not a flat plane but have some gables, but he does not see any on the plat.   The other comment is that we had a discussion that somehow have a pedestrian connection with Bob Evans so people could walk there.  We would want sidewalks included.  Mr. Hughes thinks this is a great idea.  Mr. Burriss also had concerns about dump trucks being able to serve the dumpster, and Mr. Hughes said they pushed it back as far to the east as possible.  Mr. Hughes said they can either back out or go out this way {showed on the plan}. 
Mr. Hughes said they don't have all the details on trash and lighting put together yet.  They will try to match Bob Evans's lights.  Mr. Burriss would like more Granville style lights even though they do not necessarily match those of Bob Evans.  Your building is articulated in detail, and we would like to see a consistency, the detail of lighting is one of those things that we either tie in with the building or not and we would prefer that it do so.  We want to upgrade the lighting and give it more connection.  He asked whether the dumpster would have a drain for the hose and was told it will slope into a drain.
Mike Hughes shared other details:  It will have a flat roof for air conditioning units. ~ Wiring will be underground. ~Gas meter is on the east. ~Gas meter will be screened. ~ Sidewalks will be 10'. They were not proposing to sprinkle the building. ~Signage planning is not complete. ~ Tenants go all the way through the building. ~ Spandrell glass. ~ No trucks allowed in the rear. ~Landscaping will tie in and complement the building.
Mr. Tyler said the more trees along the Bob Evans border the better and to help buffer neighbors, Mr. Riffle wants to see a wall plan, a three-dimensional plan, and a lighting plan.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION 05-073 PENDING TRAFFIC REPORT AND ENGINEER'S REPORT.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B, AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF MAY 23, 2005.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Closing Comments by the Law Director:  We are required to enforce our code.  If something is not in the code, we cannot deal with it.  We can't look at deed restrictions.
 On the other hand, if a deed restriction is incorporated into a plat, then the condition that you put on a plat that restricts becomes part of our code.  So we look at the plat and it says "deed restrictions are incorporated into the plat" and we must enforce them.
 The courts have told us we have to try to control applause. This is a public hearing not a hearing based on the opinions of the audience.  The reason is that you are not allowed to rely on public opinion to make a decision.  You rely on testimony of witnesses who say things relevant to what we are considering.  So, say, "We have got a big schedule, so please hold your applause."
 Mr. Gorry is going to determine to what extent are the deed restrictions part of our code.  Is it a public or a private street?  Our code does not regulate private streets.  If it's a public road, we have more control. 

Next Meetings:  June 13 (Mr. Tyler will be absent) and June 27
Adjournment:   10:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 5/9/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 9, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle (Chair), Tym Tyler
Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Carl Wilkenfeld
Visitors Present:   Sharon Sellito, Ida Evans, Joseph, Katie R.R. Bell, Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Richard Salvage, Steve and Marilyn Keeler, Ray and Katy Paumier, B. Llanos, Barbara Hammond, Greg Ream
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none

Minutes of April 25, 2005.   Mr. Mitchell had provided several changes to Mr. Strayer:  Page 2, Line 13 "Mr. Mitchell would feel better if the name of the existing business were on the sign."   6th line under Reiner, delete "offset a little bit but on the same plane."    Page 3, under Lieberman, "Garage doors face the side."  MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Sharon Sellito, 224 S. Prospect Street - Fence

 The applicant wishes to erect a 72" dog-eared wooden hand-built fence for privacy around the rear of her yard.  The material will be treated lumber from Lowe's, with 8' between posts and no caps.  She hopes to leave it unfinished.   The finished side will be facing outward.  She showed the group exactly where the fence would be located and said it will not be visible at 40' from the street.
 Barbara Franks, from next door, said they built an expensive fence and made it exactly as to specifications.   The fence is painted and will need periodic repainting, but if another fence is right up next to it, they cannot service their fence.  She had offered Ms. Sellito to share her fence.
 Mr. Strayer said a fence can be right on the property line but out of the right of way or 1' behind a sidewalk. 
 Dan Rogers, next door, does not want to see Ms. Sellito's fence sticking up above his fence and does not want to see trash and leaves accumulate between the two fences.  There is insufficient room under his fence to rake leaves.  He said he will seal up the fence where a tree damaged it. Ms. Sellito said she asked him in vain to set it back farther.  The reason she wants the fence is because of continuing conflicts between the two families. She said she will not allow Mr. Rogers to step on her property to paint the back of his fence.  Mr. Burriss asked whether there would be a gate, and the two parties felt no contact would ever occur.

 Mr. Tyler would only approve this with a 2' separation between the fences.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-057 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE FENCE BE 2' FROM THE ROGERS' FENCE POST.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Newkirk Spa at the Inn, 116 N. Pearl Street - Sign

 The applicant wishes to add a 2 sq.ft. brown vinyl window sign in the front window facing Pearl Street.  We formerly approved a hanging sign.  This will be in the upper sash of the window

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-059 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Taylor Drug Store, 200 East Broadway - Drive-Through Window
The applicant wishes to add a drop-in window for prescriptions and two 8"x36" steel and concrete posts for protection of the window from cars. Greg Ream noted the four parking spaces will be removed.  The Village Engineer has approved the project.  The trim will match existing trim color, and the existing lighting will be adequate.  He showed where the downspouts will be located.
Mr. Strayer asked whether the painting strips would be removed and was told Yes.  He suggested painting the bollards green but Mr. Ream said they were supposed to match the color of others in the area. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE UPPER TRIM ABOVE THE DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW {you will work with your contractor to create a backboard to make it look good) WILL MATCH THE EXISTING TRIM.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

M109, 113 North Prospect Street - Signs

For the Needling Yarn Shop, Richard Salvage explained that his daughter will move her shop across the street and explained the four signs requested (there is a rear entrance):  (1) existing projecting sign. It will be relocated to the rear of the building and mounted on the exterior wall to the left of the rear entrance; (2) existing wall sign will be relocated and mounted to the wrought iron hand rail at the steps; (3) a new projecting sign will replace the existing Pippin Hill projecting sign using the existing external lighting.  It will be mounted on the bracket currently used with Sign #1.  It will be secured to the building at the bottom to prevent wind damage and will be of the same materials and same colors as the existing signs; (4) Sandwich Board will be relocated.   

 Mr. Tyler applied the criteria for variance for the sign in the rear and found that Criterion B under 1147.03 would apply: 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.
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE FOR REAR SIGN.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE ENTIRE SIGN PACKAGE, 05-062 AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ann Hinkle, 434 East Broadway - Garage

 A representative (Steve Keeler?) presented the application.  The applicant wishes to add a board and batten garage with block foundation, split face block stained.  They will change the color of the block of the house to make it look like sandstone.  They want to add a patio to connect basement door to the garage, and this will be a separate application.  There will be downspouts, which will drain into the back yard.  There is one retaining wall at the back
 Mr. Burriss asked about windows and was told there would be a small one in the back and larger windows in the side.  They will be custom made.  The trim is 2 1/4 brick to match the trim, or 1 x 4.   The roof is dimensional shingle like on the house, and the color will match the house. 
 
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-063 AS PRESENTED.  MR.  TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.


B.Hammond Interiors, 123 East Broadway - Change of Use

 Ms. Hammond wishes to add space to her store by acquiring the storefront next door.  She is applying for a change of use from professional office to furniture store.  She said after the 4th of July she will move the front door and change the awning but abut it to the current awning.  She may add hours of operation on the other glass.  She wants to be consistent.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION O05-064 AS PRESENTED. MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Catherine Paumier, 329 North Granger Street - patio enclosure

The applicant wishes to build a hip roof over the concrete slab, either 24x26 or 20x26.  They also want to convert the gravel driveway to asphalt and add a 24x40 turnaround.  The existing concrete slab, which was originally designed for a garage, may need to be replaced with new concrete.  Ms. Paumier showed drawings of the roof and said they will do another half hip on the back.  All materials will match.  The footprint will not change.  They are hoping to use the same footers.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-065 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Finding of Fact:  MR. TYLER  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,C,E,  F,G, AND 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 MAY 9, 2005.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:   May 23 and June 13
Adjournment:  9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 4/25/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 25, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld, Tym Tyler
Members Absent:  Jackie O'Keefe
Visitors Present:  Kevin Reiner, Evelyn Frolking, Tom Bolman, Peter & Laura Pauze, Hal Lieberman, Dena McKinney, Sharon Sellito, Lise McKehnny, Brian Barkett, Wendy Flowers
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of April 11, 2005.    MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Newkirk Spa at the Inn, 116 N. Pearl Street - Sign
{Mr. Burriss recused himself from this application}
 The application having been tabled at the last meeting, tonight we have a new design with five colors, which would require a variance.
 The applicant said white is not a color.  She added that the sign will not be vinyl, it will be hand-lettered, and the white is muted.  She promised to make the orange things red.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-033 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE ORANGE WILL BE THE SAME COLOR AS THE POMEGRANATE.  MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Constance Barsky, 221 East Elm - Site Improvements
Mr. Strayer said they wish to replace the driveway strips and repair the concrete.   They will add landscaping.  The applicant is not here, and Mr. Tyler would rather have the applicant here to answer questions.  Mr. Wilkenfeld said they want to take out the parking space and continue the strip on the back to the back door.  They will remove the existing walk and create a new one with a pad for the barbecue.  Downspout water will be directed under the concrete.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-044 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Peter Pauze, 323 N. Grangter Street - Fence

The applicant wishes to build a 6' wooden privacy fence along side and rear lot lines it with a 10' car gate.
Mr. Pauze said it will be treated for weather but not painted.  He showed a picture of the preferred design plan.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT PRESSURE TREATED LUMBER IS USED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Fire Department, 133 N. Prospect Street - Door

 Tom Bolman from the Fire Department explained the door style with transom and the fact that the present door is in bad condition.  The back door will be the same but without the transom. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-046 FOR TWO DOORS: (1) FRONT DOOR PAINTED WHITE WITH RED INSIDE AND (2) BACK DOOR IS ALL RED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Debra Hannahs, 120 East Broadway - sign

 Ms. Hannahs, the owner of the building, wishes to permit Evelyn Frolking to advertise her Artiflora business, which will be located in front of Home Pleasures.  The sidewalk sign will be 12 sq.ft. of white pvc with a changeable space and an angled iron frame.  Ms. Frolking said the shop will be open only during suitable months on Fridays and Saturdays. The second color is screened so there are two shades of brown on one side. 
 GPC members told her it is too large.  She said she wanted a metal frame in plastic and this was the only size the sign company could get. 
 Mr. Mitchell would feel better if the name of the existing business were on the sign.  He does not see any reason for such a big sign.
 Mr. Strayer said we can look at this as a temporary sign since it is only up 4-5 months a year.  We can grant a permit for this but next year she will have to come back for a permanent sign.
 Mr. Riffle is concerned about setting a precedent.
 Ms. Frolking said she could go to another sign-maker.  She would not like a temporary sign because she might want to open on other days of the week. 
 Mr. Burriss suggested specifying that it be of regulation size.
 
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-048 WITH CONDITION THAT IT FALL WITHIN THE ORDINANCE REGULATION OF 8 SQ. FT.  MR.  WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Kevin Reiner, 540 W. Broadway - Remodeling

The applicant showed photos of how the remodeling will look.  He wants to (1) add a second story over the existing kitchen; (2) add an 18x25' greenhouse of the rear of the kitchen; (3) add 4 dormers where existing second story windows are located.  He wants to bump out the kitchen a little bit.  The house is 17.'5" from the property line.
Mr. Mitchell asked about the plane of the roof and was told it will be two separate parallel roofs with the same slope.
Mr. Burriss wanted to hear about the fenestration patterns, and Mr. Reiner explained them in detail. 
Mr. Reiner wanted more light and detail and wanted it all to look correct.  He does not know whether he will use the shutters but saved them all.  Cedar siding will be on the addition.  The west side will be flush with the original part of the house. 
Mr. Burriss' thought is to approve on condition that we see final plans, although the renderings are beautiful.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT SOME OF US SIGN OFF ON WORKING DRAWINGS. AN ADDITIONAL 5' WILL BE ADDED TO THE KITCHEN PLANS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Jack Burriss, 226 East Broadway - Change of use
{Mr. Burriss recused himself from this application.}
 Following some good-natured bantering, Mr. Strayer explained that Mr. Burriss wishes to change the beauty salon to his furniture store, Cherry Tradition.   It would be a less intensive use so the parking would not be an issue. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-051 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

120 West Broadway - Signage

 Mr. Burriss asked how far the sign would be off the ground and was told 24" by John Barkett.  There will be no landscaping. He said he wanted to make sure everything was OK since our last work session.  They are going to remove the gingerbread.  GPC agreed that it would be acceptable.

Hal Lieberman, Tall Pines

 The applicant wishes to build a development behind the Catholic Church and he brought in a sketch plan tonight.  He said the dedicated private road is gravel but will be concrete or asphalt.  The community will not be gated. Units are 20,000 sq.ft. Village Council will review all aspects of this project, including the number of school children to be added to town.  He wants to put in no sidewalks to encourage a "lane feel."  Mr. Mitchell wants to see sidewalks and wants to be sure fire department has opportunity to comment on design.  Garage doors face the side.  There is a stand of woods before the golf course.
 Mr. Mitchell recommended changing the lot lines to follow the slope of the hill and angle the lot lines to follow contours.   
 Other things to consider are:  proper drainage, curbs and gutters, culverts, no open ditches.
 This will eventually go to the water department, the fire department, and the engineer.
 
Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS A,B,C,D,E, AND F UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF APRIL 21, 2005.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:  May 9 and May 23
Adjournment:  9:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 4/11/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 11, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Tim Riffle (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld, Tym Tyler
Members Absent: 
Visitors Present:  Beth Moss, Mildred Moss, Deb Hibler, Kevin Reiner, Deborah Jewel, Brian Barkett, Keith Myers, Fred Abraham, Tim Ryan, Gloria Hoover, Joanne Morey, Dennis Kuchon, Sharon Sellito. Martha Keyes
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of March 28, 2005.   Change to "MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED."

 MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Karl Moss, 331 North Pearl Street - Fence

 The application was tabled at the last meeting pending more information.  Tonight we have the site plan of the fences and some pictures.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 After a short discussion about the location, 
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-031 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Newkirk Spa, 116 North Pearl Street - Projecting Sign

{Mr. Burriss recused himself from this application.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.   
The woman representing the applicant showed a picture and explained the sign in greater detail than was shown in the application. "Newkirk Spa" is in navy, with green background and logo and a splash of red.  The two-sided hanging sign will be placed on the corner next to the building.
She wants six colors, but only three are allowed.   Mr. Strayer said we have granted variances for more than three colors, but not six.  She promised to try to get it down to three colors.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE 05-033 PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE SIGN.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Mary Lee Van Meter, 122 N. Pearl Street - Rezoning

 The application is a resubmission from a previously withdrawn application to change zoning from VRD to VBD.  In zoning cases, the Village Traffic Engineer must make his recommendation regarding traffic for residential vs. commercial.  Rezoning recommendations go to Village Council from GPC.

 Tim Ryan explained that he wants to have his private office in the building.  He has had an office in Granville for 15 years and wants his own building.  He has no people coming to his office; he has large business clients out of town.  He handles no residential real estate. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld wondered how we can guarantee that people will not park in the neighbor's driveway next door, and Mr. Ryan does not know why they would.   Mr. Strayer said parking is not an issue in rezoning, so if V.C. grants approval, an applicant still has to come here for change of use, and parking will be looked at then.  Instead, we look for traffic flow and access.
 Ms. O'Keefe said once it is rezoned to business, what's to stop a more objectionable business if Mr. Ryan leaves? 
 Fred Ashbaugh repeated the issues he raised on January 24, such as parking. People park in his driveway now and turn around there.  A scale map should have been provided and a map of adjacent properties.  He does not want to see more commercial establishments.  Also, the highway was not notified about a rezoning.  There was discussion about whether this was necessary,
Mr. Tyler said ODOT does not get involved in local zoning.  Mr. Wilkenfeld thought this was a matter for the Law Director to consider.  Mr. Strayer said once Shawn Hillman's letter (from ODOT) arrived, that ended our involvement and terminates our obligation.  Mr. Hillman's letter indicated that ODOT does not get involved with rezoning of local properties, as most of their land interests are public rights of way.  Therefore, they neither support nor object to any requested rezoning.  Mr. Tyler said ODOT does not get involved in local zoning. 
Also, the Master Plan called for spaces that primarily serve the local community.  Mr. Ryan does not deal with business in Granville.  Mr. Ashbaugh provided a petition against the rezoning. 
 Martha Keyes lives across the street and said people are in their driveway all the time from across the street, and this has been going on for a long time.
 The woman from Newkirk said if you keep making our commercial property smaller and smaller, you will stifle the village.  Mr. Ryan will own the property and fix it up and make it look better.  You can't put something in there that requires a lot of space, so you don't have to be concerned about the future.  Any businessman would recommend Tim Ryan vs. what's there now. 
 Deb Hibler said some of those places which now have more than adequate parking started out this way.  How easy is it to rezone the neighbor's property?  Will we just keep extending all the way down Pearl Street?  Pearl is already too busy.  There are other business properties available now.  It will set a precedent.
 Dennis Kuchon noted that in a residential neighborhood there is a critical sense of people.  A lot of the area is dead.  You are pushing businesses up Pearl Street.  Residential homes along Broadway are homes rather than businesses and it's a big decision before you.  Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that this creates a domino effect.
 Sharon Sillito stated that a few years ago we were concerned about keeping business properties in the areas where they were.  The smarter thing to do is to concentrate them where they are.  It's a big mistake to eliminate residential homes.
 Joanne Morey did not want to see any more residential building converted to business use. We have enough traffic and parking problems without adding to them.
 Keith Myers said what you are making is not a decision on Tim Ryan's business; you are making a decision on land use.  It's not a matter of Tim running a good business there or whether his specific use is appropriate but the problem is the change of use forever.  He sees a lot of deterioration of neighborhoods.  At one end we have continuation of commercial and at the other is a bank who wants to tear down a house for a parking lot. This neighborhood is extremely concerned about this and will not take it lightly.  Think about forty years from now.
 Tim Ryan said he has lived in Granville twenty years and his wife teaches in the school system. He is renting space and wanted to look at this property because it abuts a business property.  It has been a rental for about ten years.  He has a quiet business with a partner.  Parking is not an issue, but the lot can be redesigned for 3-4 cars.  The Traffic Engineer has reported on trips generated by residential use vs. commercial use.  Mr. Ryan does not want anything negative to happen in the future and can understand the tax concerns and will pay taxes.  He thinks his use is a better use than as a rental home.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO VILLAGE COUNCIL.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND THE MOTION WAS DENIED (Mr. Burriss and Mr. Riffle voted Aye. The others voted Nay.)

Fred Abraham, 400 South Main Street - Sign

 The applicant wishes to erect a 90 sq.ft. one-sided joint freestanding business sign, which will require two variances-for multiple tenants and size.  There are other multiple tenant signs in the area larger than 24 sq.ft.  Fred Abraham said this would be the same size as the IGA sign.  The changeable sign would be wood with  northshore stone overlay on post.  It would be taupe and the aluminum sign is red with white vinyl lettering. 
 Mr. Mitchell asked why such a big sign is requested and Mr. Abraham said some people can't find the businesses in the area.  The Thrift Shop doesn't really have a sign.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether each tenant would be allowed 24 sq.ft. and the answer was No.  Mr. Burriss said the architectural posts needs to be included, and we encouraged something with more character for the IGA and Certified.  Without the posts, Mr. Strayer said this would be 60 sq.ft.  Mr. Tyler noted that the IGA is a multiple-tenant sign, but Certified is a single business sign.  Mr. Burriss noted GPC cut down on the number of signs Certified requested. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld applied the application to the criteria for variances:

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 circumstances refer to the multiple-tenancy of the area.  The IGA already has a multiple-tenant 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 applicant of rights enjoyed by others.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. N/A 
D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.  It would not.
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.  Granting the variance would not affect others.

 Mr. Riffle wants the sign to match other signs in the area.  Mr. Strayer said IGA was allowed 64 sq.ft. in 2000 after variances were approved.

 Mr. Abraham said he can move the sign up to conserve space and get rid of the blank space.  Mr. Burriss wants him to move it up 4" and remove 10"at the bottom.  The sign would have no landscaping and no lighting. 

 MR. WUILKENFELD MOVED THAT WE APPROVE VARIANCES BOTH FOR THE SIZE AND NUMBER OF TENANTS FOR THE SIGN BASED ON THE CODE, B, C, D, AND E.  APPROVAL IS FOR A SIGN UP TO 60 SQ.FT AND UP TO SIX TENANTS.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR. MITCHELL VOTED NAY). 

 MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-039 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN SHALL BE MOVED UP 10"; (2) THE MULTIPLE TENANT SIGN TO HAVE A 4" BORDER AT OUTSIDE EDGE CONSISTENT ON ALL THREE SIDES.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR. MITCHELL VOTED NAY)

Granville Milling Company, 400 S. Main Street - Temporary Sign

 The Mill wishes to announce the opening of its expanded store with a temporary sidewalk sign saying "Country Store now open."  Phil Watts said they need to let people know the east door is now open.  They would want the sign up for six months and would take it inside each evening.  It would be right in front of their new sign on their side of the sidewalk
 
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-040 WITH TIME LIMIT OF SIX MONTHS.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Sessions:
Kevin Reiner, 540 W. Broadway - Remodeling

 Mr. Reiner said they are adding onto the kitchen and wish to add new windows and use the trim that is there now. Additional space with pediments would be added above windows.  Two windows would be added on the east and two on the west.  One window had been removed, and they want to reinstall it. 
Mr. Burriss asked for details about the porch, and Mr. Reiner said he is researching columns and railings.  Materials will be lap cedar siding and standing seam metal roof. There is an old greenhouse of redwood with foundation of standing stone below the glass, 18' wide and 25' long. It is smaller than the width of the kitchen.
 Mr. Burriss said we will need a site plan with complete details.

John Barkett, 120 W. Broadway - Sign
 For a psychology office, the applicant wishes to add a sign tag to the existing hanging sign for the area that was once the Thrift Shop, and showed a picture.  The psychologist will enhance academic performance for students.  The sign will be black on white with some green trim.
 Mr. Burriss recommended a border on the frame and to keep it no wider than the others.  He would like to see consistency in the border with the other one. 
 The entrance is to the left of the French doors, and Mr. Barkett wants an awning over the door.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS A,B, AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF APRIL 7, 2005.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Strayer will write up the finding for the rezoning application denial.

JEDD
 Mr. Strayer said the Planning and Zoning Committee wanted GPC's opinion on this revised document before they went further on it.    The properties under consideration are Owens Corning, Hitt, and the field across from Kendal.  Mr. Wilkenfeld wants to see a map showing these locations.  He wants to protect residential neighbors, and any areas visible from major roads should be implemented.  He wanted the document to be more specific.  Mr. Strayer said conservation setback minimum is 300' from Rt. 16.
 Ms. O'Keefe said this will require a change in zoning.  The JEDD make-up will be 2 from Village Council, 2 from Township Trustees, and 1 more.
 Mr. Riffle wanted to be sure all parties work together to bring in businesses we want. 
 Mr. Strayer said there will be a referendum to see whether people want it.  The Trustees will go to a general election but probably not the Village.
 Mr. Burriss asked whether we need to go through the entire document and Mr. Wilkenfeld thought we should talk to the parties directly involved.  Mr. Strayer said this will need to be prepared by the August 25 deadline for a referendum. GPC is administrator of the codes and you are to be sure it is workable and the language is consistent with the village and township.

Next Meeting:   April 25 7 p.m. to discuss JEDD
Adjournment:  9:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 3/28/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 28, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Carl Wilkenfeld, Tym Tyler
Members Absent:  Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle (Chair)
Visitors Present:  Richard Pinkerton, Peter Knailes, Stephen Sulka, Janine Waranomie, Larane Boror, Beth Moss, Mildred Moss, Gil Wright Miller, Mike Frazier, Art Chonko, Barbara Hammond, Tom Orico, Jason Zadeia 
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Carl Wilkenfeld chaired the meeting in the absence of Chair and Vice Chair.
Mr. Wilkenfeld swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of March 14, 2005.   MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Denison University, Landscaping Plan

 When the plans for the two new residence halls were approved, the applicant was asked to return later with a landscaping plan, which Art Chonko presented at this time.  They have been working with the Biology Department to incorporate some of their programs into the landscaping plan.  Terraces are planned, and the parking lot will have some trees.  They did not want to plan so many trees that the view would be blocked.
 
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE LANDSCAPING PLAN AS SUBMITTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Golf Course Company, Glyn Tawel Drive - Modification

 Richard Pinkerton described the applicant's desire to reduce the setback from 35' to 15' on Lot 521 because of the steep topography.  This would be similar to other lots in the area with steep frontages.  He described the exact location of the future house site and said it was probably an oversight not to include this lot at the time when other variances were requested.
 Mr. Mitchell suggested moving the next lot boundary to give each an advantage, but Mr. Pinkerton said there is no fill there.  Mr. Mitchell noted there is fill there and people do not build on fill, but Mr. Pinkerton said there is no fill there.
Mr. Wilkenfeld noted other lots have received setback variances.   

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-028 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:
Karl Moss, 331 N. Pearl Street - Fence

 Mr. Strayer said this new fence would replace the old one damaged by the ice storm.  The new fence will be in the same location but of a different construction and will extend farther down on the lot line,
 Beth Moss said they will replace the privacy fence along the patio and put up a split rail fence with green coated wire in the rear.
 The applicant was asked whether she could bring a plan back for the next meeting, and she agreed to do so.
 Mr. Mitchell preferred to see a plan with detail, and Mr. Wilkenfeld said that although we have no problem with the concept, we need to document everything for the record and we cannot do it with just one photo. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO TABLE 05-031 PENDING FURTHER DETAILS, MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

B. Hammond Interiors, 123 East Broadway - Signs

 The applicant has added a little shop behind her shop and requests signage changes at this time for: (1) Awning Sign, (2) Sidewalk Sign (3) Window Sign.  The words "Bab's Closet" will be added to all three, and the sidewalk sign is the only one with a color change, from copper on black to black on copper.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-032 AS PRESENTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Gill Wright Miller, 213 N. Granger Street - Fence

 Ms. Miller wishes to add a white picket fence along the south property line.  She showed pictures and explained where it will be located. 

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-034 AS PRESENTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bob Evans Farms, South Cherry Valley Road - Temporary Sign

 The request is for a V-shaped sign ("The Shops at Granville, coming soon") for a building not applied for yet.  The Law Director said there is no problem with this.  The request adheres to all regulations, and there are no color restrictions for a temporary sign.  It will be on the side facing the highway.  The applicant agreed to reduce the size from 10.5' to 10.0' to stay within the height requirement.
 Ms. O'Keefe wanted them to ensure it will not be a distraction to vehicles on the highway.
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN AT NO MORE THAN 10' HIGH.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. MITCHELL  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A AND B UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND ITEMS B,D, AND E UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF MARCH 24, 2005.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Sessions: 
Granville Public Library
 Mr. Mitchell asked whether the work session should be postponed until all members could be present, and Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested that a quick overview be presented tonight.
 Mike Frazier explained the plans, which will just about double the size of the library from 13,000 sq.ft. to 25,000 sq.ft.  The architect and the staff worked together on layout of the three floors to make everything functional.  They hope to keep the library open during construction, and they are under negotiation with a person who is interested in the Sinnett House.
 Jack Hedge, architect, explained the materials to be used on the outside, sandstone a little bit different from the existing exterior.  It's hard to match it exactly, but it will be of a beige color.  They wanted it to feel like a separate building.  It will not have stucco, but will have brick on relief and a change of materials.  Mr. Mitchell thought the main part of the building should be with stone and the bump-out be stucco.  There will be a balcony and a sunken garden in the lower level for the children's section, and it will be temperature controlled to protect materials.  There will be steps to the outside from the basement and the existing trees will stay. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld likes the plan but wants the absent members to hear the presentation.  This will be set up at a separate time.
 Lot coverage is 69 per cent and the maximum is 70 per cent.

Directional Signs
 Directional signs have been designed and the Village requests GPC's approval on the locations and the kiosk at Alltel Park. Signs will be at (1) this corner, (2) Taylor's, (3) Methodist corner, (4) The Elms, (5) Cherry and Broadway.  The signs are $1500 each and the kiosk with Plexiglas front, $3100.  The kiosk has a map and a place where persons can tack up ads, but anyone will have to go through the village office for approval.
 Mr. Mitchell thought the green signs were too dark and suggested a brighter color.  Mr. Wilkenfeld noted they were too weighty, like a tombstone.
Mr. Tyler wants consistency for all signs, with whale tails. 

Next Meetings:   April 11 and April 25
Adjournment:  8:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 3/14/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 14, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Carl Wilkenfeld, Tim Riffle (Chair), Tym Tyler
Members Absent
Visitors Present: Steve Mershon, Mark Parris, Richard Van Meter, Eileen Arant
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Resolution No. 05-13:  Mr. Burriss read into the record a Resolution of Appreciation for Mark Parris.
Citizens Comments:  Mark Parris thanked all for allowing him the privilege of working with them.  "Even though we did not always agree with each other, we did not vote the same, nobody kept score.  Thank you for your service to the community."

Minutes of February 28, 2005:    On Page 1, there is a typo about halfway down the page.   MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Dick Van Meter, 272 West Maple Street - Storage Shed

 The applicant wishes to erect a 10'x14' free-standing storage shed in the parking lot area between the two apartment buildings he recently purchased.  Mr. Van Meter said it will have neither windows nor shutters.  The buildings are of aluminum siding and in need of improvements and they will paint them later.  The shed will match the aluminum siding color of the apartments, and the trim will match color of the shed. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld does not see this as a problem; one cannot really see it from the road.
 
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-024 WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS: (1) THE STORAGE BUILDING WILL BE 10'X14'; (2) NO WINDOWS OR SHUTTERS; (3) SIDING TO MATCH COLOR OF APARTMENT BUILDING; AND (4) TRIM TO MATCH COLOR OF THE SHED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mary Bline, Lakeholm Company, 128 S. Main Street - Sign

 To accommodate the new tenant for the building, the applicant wishes to construct a new free-standing aluminum sign in front.  It will have green letters on a white background and be placed on steel tube. At the last meeting we approved a change of use for the building.  This design is typical of other signs in the district.  Mr. Mershon said it will replace the sign currently in use.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-026 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Eileen Arant, 126 East Broadway - Wall Sign

 The owner of Broadway Deli wishes to change name of store to Broadway Pub and is requesting a new sign to replace the old one.  The colors will be black background with gold lettering and will be the same length but 2" higher.  The font will be block lettering, and the sign is wood with raised gold lettering. 
 Mr. Burriss asked if there would be equal borders around the sign and the answer was yes, the drawing is an approximation.
 
 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-027 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THERE WILL BE EQUAL BORDERS AROUND THE LETTERING.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Golf Course Company, Glyn Tawel - Modification

 The applicant wishes to modify the PUD plan to change the front yard setbacks for Lot 521 in Bryn Du Phase V.  The approved setback is 35', and they wish to decrease it to 15' setback.  The extreme topography on site limits ability to construct on a 35' setback.
 Mr. Mitchell thought they could shift lot lines by moving the line of 522.  This way we would not have to change the PUD and would give him more useable area. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether the Home Owners Association had anything to do with this application, and the answer was no.  We would rather have the association deal with these things, but GPC approves minor modifications to PUDs. 
 Mr. Mitchell would like the applicant to be here and say why this cannot be done.  Mr. Riffle does not see how moving it 20' would hurt anyone. 
 Ms. O'Keefe asked whether by giving them a change, would we be giving to this lot something not given to other lots?  Mr. Strayer said in Phase IV some lots have 15' setbacks. 
 Mr. Riffle wants to tell the applicant that we are not comfortable and want him to come up with another idea.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE 05-028.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. MITCHELL  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF MARCH 8, 2005.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Closing Comments:  Ms. O'Keefe would like to correct the minutes to reflect the fact that the buildings at Greystone are two separate buildings.  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO AMEND THE MINUTES TO SHOW THAT THE GREYSTONE IS ACTUALLY TWO BUILDINGS.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:   March 28 (Mr. Riffle will be absent on the 28th) and April 11
Adjournment:  8:12 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 2/28/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 28, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tom Mitchell,  Jackie O'Keefe, Carl Wilkenfeld, Tim Riffle (Chair), Tym Tyler
Members Absent
Visitors Present: Amit Kumar Saini, Dena McKinley, Steve Mershon
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none

Minutes of February 14, 2005:    On Page 1, Line 5, change Riffle to Tyler.  Halfway down the page, change Mr. Tyler to "Mr. Riffle asked about the bay window." Last line of Sween application, "Mr. Riffle is not yet…."   MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Newkirk Spa, 116 N. Pearl Street - Change of use

 (Mr. Burriss recused himself from this hearing.) 
 The applicant wishes a change of use from a floral shop to a beauty salon.  Both are permitted uses, and the parking required would be fewer spaces.
 Ms. O'Keefe said that when this site was discussed before, people complained that parking was an issue for the house next door.  Mr. Strayer said they can fit two cars in the driveway.  The applicants own the Granville Inn, and cars can probably park in the Inn's lot.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked if there is a policy whereby an owner can call the police if someone is parking in his driveway, and the answer is yes, it can be towed after ticketing. 
 Mr. Tyler asked whether Newkirk could put up a sign designating parking spaces, and Mr. Strayer will ask the Newkirks to do this.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-016 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT: (1) THE OWNER SHALL ERECT A SIGN DESIGNATING APPROVED PARKING SPACES AND (2) MR. STRAYER IS TO CALL THE NEIGHBORS AND TELL THEM TO CALL POLICE IF A CAR IS PARKED IN THEIR DRIVEWAY.   MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Cold Dame Investments, 226 E. Broadway - Change of use
(Mr. Burriss recused himself from this hearing.)
  The applicant wishes to move her print and shipping business from behind the former First Federal to the spot where a psychologist's office was.  Parking is not an issue, as parking is available in the rear.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-017 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.


Cold Dame Investments, 226 E. Broadway - Signage
(Mr. Burriss recused himself from this hearing.)
 This applicant previously mentioned asks for a wall sign and a sidewalk sign.  This issue was previously approved from the previous location.  The wall sign goes on the door. 

 MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 05-018 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Amit Kumar Siani, 130 N. Prospect Street - Change of Use

 The applicant wishes to change the site from a dry cleaners to a carry-out smoothie shop. Mr. Siani purchased Generation Smoothie, which was located on Cherry Valley Road.  He will use all organic and natural food and it will have no exhaust hood and no seating.   Mr. Strayer believes the available parking fulfills requirements in the code, since there are four businesses in the building and some require few spaces. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-019 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

The Lakeholm Company, 128 South Main Street (John and Mary Bline, Greystone) - Change of Use

 Mr. Strayer explained that when this building was approved for use, it was for retail and offices in the front and retail in the rear.  Steve Mershon explained their wish to expand the uses to be able to put offices in the rear also.  The front part was for one- or two-person offices, and he wishes to increase this maximum.  The rear part will continue as Greystone Country House. 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-020 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. MITCHELL  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,C, D AND E UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF FEBRUARY 24, 2005.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.


Work Session:
 Steve Mershon had questions about signage for the above-mentioned property.   They wish to have a sign similar to that of TLR Associates at 132 South Main at the front of the building.  This would be a multi-tenant sign with scrollwork on the top, of black metal. 
 Mr. Burriss asked about the Greystone sign, and Mr. Mershon said it is a worn-out sign and he expects there would be one metal sign with two separate signs on it with names. 
 GPC members thought the ideas were reasonable.
 
Next Meetings:   March 14 and 28 (Mr. Riffle will be absent on the 28th)
Adjournment:  8:06 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 2/14/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 14, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle (Chair), Tym Tyler
Members Absent:  Jackie O'Keefe, Carl Wilkenfeld*
Visitors Present:  Mark Clapsadle, Sara Lee, Mark Sween, Ned Roberts
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak and welcomed Tim Tyler as new member.
Citizens Comments:  none

Minutes of January 24, 2005:    On Page 2, the O'Neill motion was made by Mr. Mitchell.  Same Paragraph, Line 3, "posts for the fence are 6' on center."  Under (5) "There will be a gas or electric fixture."   MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Swearing In:  Mayor Lyn Robertson swore-in new member Tym Tyler.

New Business:

Mark Sween, 329 Summit Street - Addition

 Mr. Strayer explained that in September an application for demolition of the garage was approved, but members denied application for the garage and subsequently worked with the applicant to draft a more appropriate design. The revised design would require variances, and BZBA did grant the necessary variances at their last meeting.
 Mr. Clapsadle, architect, stated that based on the comments heard at the last GPC meeting, they revised the plans to make the addition less noticeable.  They pulled it in from the side lot line, accomplishing a result more in keeping with the existing house with less visual impact and allowing more yard space.  They worked on the one-story porch to make it look like a glassed-in porch and to fit in well with the house.    This design has more class and simplicity.
 Mr. Riffle asked about the bay window and was told it is coming off because the construction is questionable.  In rebuilding, it will match the house better.  The extra windows in the bay will be removed to make it look less like a tower. 
 To bring the new member and others up to date on the design and planning, Mr. Burriss explained that tonight's proposal is much more supplemental and less overpowering and it allows some of the detail on the house to be focused.  In the previous proposal the left façade was on a continuous plane, and tonight the architect has stepped it back.  The columns from the articulated porch have been incorporated on the side to make it look like an enclosed porch. 
 Mr. Mitchell thought it looks like a big improvement and they have responded to our comments. 
 Mr. Riffle is not yet completely thrilled, but he is happier than he was last time.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 05-007 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Sara Lee, 124 S. Cherry Street - Addition
   The applicant wishes to raise the roof in back of house to add a master bedroom and bathroom. 
 Ned Roberts explained the history of the renovation he did in the past and said now the

*arrived at end of meeting


applicant wishes to raise the roof, using the existing foundation from the garage.  It would be
stepped, and this roofline would be smaller.  The definition on the corner of the house would stay, and the new addition would not detract from the house.  Ms. Lee was going to use awning windows on one side.  The addition would be above the garage roofline.  He explained the design of the dormers and cited difficulty in matching slate in the roofs.  He said in the back there would be a covered open patio.   The new roof would match the garage roof, and there will be lap siding.
 Mr. Burris would like to see a little more flow between the two buildings. Windows plans were discussed with the possibility of double-hung windows.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 05-011 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE FINAL DESIGN OF THE DORMER BE APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND EITHER MR. BURRISS OR MR. RIFFLE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bruce Westall, 241 East Maple Street - Addition

 This application for the Porch House is to fill in a space 21' long and 4 ½' wide at the porch not filled in originally. 
 Ned Roberts explained the background of the past construction and the present design plans for a half bath and office.  He explained the design of windows and roof and said it will not be very visible.

 MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-012 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Lumber Company, 401 South Main Street - Shutters

 To enhance the appearance of the new addition, they wish to put paired shutters on east side of the building to match existing shutters.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE SHUTTERS MATCH THE EXISTING SHUTTERS.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. RIFFLE  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 FEBRUARY 11, 2005.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.


Election of Officers: 
 MR. MITCHELL NOMINATED MR. RIFFLE AS CHAIRMAN.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 MR. RIFFLE NOMINATED MR. BURRIS FOR VICE CHAIRMAN.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:  February 28 and March 14
Adjournment:  8:28 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

Planning Minutes 1/24/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 24, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Tim Riffle, Mark Parris (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld (Vice Chair)
Members Absent: 
Visitors Present:  McNally, Mildred Moss, Fred Ashbaugh, Tim Ryan, Jon Fields, Phil Watts, Msgr. Enke, Tim Bascom, Mike Hayen, Jon and Leslie O'Neill
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  none

Minutes of December 13, 2004.  Mr. Burriss was absent.  At bottom of page 1, 3d line up, it is supposed to be "lintels."   MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Elizabeth Carr, 130 East Broadway- Sidewalk Sign
 
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 The application was tabled after confusion as to whether two places of business of the same owner could be placed on one sign, since off-premises signs are not allowed.  Mr. Strayer received no response from the Law Director, but there is nothing in the code prohibiting this.
 Mr. Parris trusts the Village Planner's judgment, but Mr. Mitchell feels this is inappropriate and sets a precedent, and Ms. O'Keefe wants to hear the opinion of the Law Director.  Mr. Wilkenfeld respects both opinions.  Mr. Riffle thinks we cannot interpret things into the code which are not there.  Mr. Wilkenfeld feels the code should be clarified in a timely manner and wants Village Council to consider this question.  Ms. O'Keefe will take the question to Village Council.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-188 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (Mr. Mitchell voted No.)

New Business:

Mary Lee Van Meter, 122 North Pearl Street - Rezoning
 The request is to rezone the property from VRD to VBD, for office use.  The two properties on either side are zoned VBD (One is Broadway Blooms).  At the time of the last rezoning, GPC members were concerned about what might open in the premises in the future.
 Tim Ryan wants to purchase the building for a TLR real estate office, with hours of operation 9 to 7.  Most of his business is out of state; therefore, there will be almost no visitors to the office.  There is room for two cars now, whereas the code requires three.
 Mr. Strayer said a couple of neighbors have objections to the rezoning.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld would be willing to propose to Village Council to change the code to make a section strictly for office use.  One of the things that makes the village great is that a lot of people live in the village.  He is afraid of the domino effect in rezoning, for soon you do not have the community vibrancy.   Mr. Parris thought this was spot zoning, but we are in need of office space. 
 Fred Ashbaugh, neighbor, has done a crash course on rezoning and reviewed the application.  He listed several items which the application lacks, and members discussed each of them.  He is concerned about the parking for the two employees, and he would not like to see more commercial sites in the residential area.  Mr. Strayer said the code needs to be updated to reflect the fact that ODOT does not want to be notified about rezoning on their highways.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO VILLAGE COUNCIL.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR. WILKENFELD AND MR. PARRIS VOTED NO). 
Mr. Strayer will write the Finding of Fact.


Leslee O'Neill, 865 Newark-Granville Road - Fence

 The applicants wish to place an iron fence atop a retaining wall or right behind it.  Every 7' it will have a thicker post and gate in the driveway with 6" steel posts.  Mr. O'Neill added that the drainage problems have been taken care of.  Mr. Riffle thought the fence would look better on top of the fence.  GPC members gave the applicants suggestions for a sturdy attractive fence, but Mr. Burriss wants to see a detailed drawing and proportions of the fence with corners, but Mr. Parris thought the application should be brought to a vote now.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld wants Mr. Burriss' concerns expressed to the Village Planner, for all these details should be voted upon.  Mr. Parris prefers that the Village Planner approve the details.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-196 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) IT'S TO BE A 48" FENCE WITH ¾" PICKETS; (2) POSTS IN THE WALK ARE 6" SQUARE STEEL WITH PYRAMID CAP; (3) POSTS FOR THE FENCE ARE 6' ON CENTER. (4) PICKETS ARE STEEL; (5) STONE AT THE CORNER POSTS IN THE DRIVEWAY ARE 12" OR SO BY 6'; (5) THERE WILL BE A GAS OR ELECTRIC FIXTURE; (6) MATERIALS AND DETAILS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND JACK BURRIS.  MR. WILKENFELS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Julia McNally, 147 Westgate - Signs

 For a dog training and day care service, the applicant wishes a 52 sq.ft. wall sign with red and black lettering and red border; the free-standing sign is 28 sq.ft. which is 4' over maximum, with same colors.  The applicant is willing to cut it down by 4'.  The wall sign is on the building and the ground sign is at the entrance to the driveway as close to the road as permitted and it will be of maximum height. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-001 WITH THE FOLLOWING CLARIFICATIONS;  (1) WALL SIGN IS FRONT CENTER OF THE BUILDING; (2) GROUND SIGN IS A 20 SQ.FT TWO-SIDED SIGN; (3) TOP OF THE SIGN IS NO HIGHER THAN 8' OFF THE GROUND; (4) MR. STRAYER TO GO OUT TO BE SURE IT IS PLACED OUT OF THE ROW.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Mill, 400 South Main Street - Sign

 The Mill is ready to put up signs on the new addition.  The wall sign is 84 sq.ft. whereas maximum is 60 sq.ft.  It will have 4 colors, vs. 3 colors max.  The free-standing sign meets all requirements.  There are 3 lights above the wall sign.  Mr. Watts said the lighting is already there, but he is willing to cut 4' off the wall sign.
 This is another issue to be brought to the attention of Village Council-that white should not be considered a color.  Mr. Wilkenfeld applied the criteria to the application: 

A.  That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.  N/A  
 B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance.  Some adjacent buildings have variances for colors.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  This applies.
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.  This one works.
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.  This one works too. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCES FOR WALL SIGN BASED ON NOS. B, C, D, E, OF SECTION 1147.03.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 05-004 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) WALL SIGN NOT TO EXCEED TOTAL 60 SQ.FT; (2) LIGHT FIXTURES WILL BE DARK GREEN SIMILAR TO COLOR OF THE BACKGROUND WALL.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.


Ben Rader, 120 ½ East Broadway (Patty Urbatis)- Sign

 The applicant put up the door sign without permission, so Staff asked the applicant to remove it and gain approval.    Earlier we did approve a wall sign over the awning.  Mr. Strayer wants to see final details and dimensions for the file.  It has white letters and covers 15 per cent of the window area.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT PATTY URBATIS GIVE MR. STRAYER FINAL DIMENSIONS.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

St. Edwards Catholic Church, 785 Newark-Granville Road - Signs

 The Church is requesting two temporary 6 sq.ft. signs for upcoming events once a week.  This falls under the section entitled "Other," and was determined acceptable by GPC.
 Father Emke explained that the Fish Fry signs would be up from February 14 to March 18 and the other, for Catholics Returning Home, Feb. 25 through April 3 and December 2 through January 8, 2006.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 05-010 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Work Session:   

Tim Bascom and Mike Heyen were present to discuss a development North Star wishes to build at Cherry Valley and Rt. 16 behind Bob Evans.  They are seeking 1200 sq.ft. for an upscale shopping center with 5 or 6 tenants.  There will be a sidewalk around all sides, buffered parking, height and density spelled out, mechanicals on roof.  They will bury the grease pick up if they are required to.  The dumpster will be enclosed and have a hose connection, and every day there would be a dumpster pick-up.  The store signs will be the same and located front and back.  There will be stone veneer and span do (?) glass on the back or infill with standard brick panels.  A sidewalk will connect to Bob Evans, and pedestrian access within site will be comfortable.   It's not a destination mall but rather a neighborhood service area.  There are several other areas like this, at Morse and Hamilton, Wilson Bridge, and 161 and Sawmill. 
A ground sign will say 'Granville Retail Center" and they are looking at lighting.  A landscape plan was provided, and elevations will show window and door details and door hardware, etc.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND A,B,C,D,E,F UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF JANUARY 19, 2005.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings: February 14 and February 28
Adjournment:  10:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

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.