Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 09/20/99

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 20,1999
Minutes
Members Present:Keith Myers C( hair)R,ichard Salvage,
Members Absent:Carl Wilkenfeld,Bernie Lukco,Bill Wernet,Jack Burriss
Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: none
Called to order: 7:30 p.m.
Citizens'Comments: none
Old Business:
Chapter 1189 - Signs
Revisions ofthe sign code were discussed. Particularly,pages 8-11; the Design
Standards ofthe Planned Industrial C&ommercial Districts,Suburban Business District,
Community Service District in proposed section 1189.05.01. Changes are noted on the
draft copy ofthe proposed sign code revision.
The sign code committee adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
1

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 09/11/00

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 11,2000
Minutes
GPC,9/11/ 00, 1
Members Present: Jack Burriss,Barbara Lucier, Bernie Lukco, Keith Myers,Richard Salvage Members Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Dale McCoy,Barbara McCoy,Fred Abraham, C.K. Barsky, Steve Breech
Minutes of August 28: MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR.
BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens' Comments:None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
New Business:
Pat Hull,Southgate Corp., Colomen Gwen Circle,Newark- Granville Road -Temporary Sign
Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposes to locate a temporary subdivision ground sign
along Newark-Granville Road at Colomen Gwen Circle. Mr. Beach said that he has received many
calls already as interest is great for the Colony Homes, and they have also received calls from people
trying to make deliveries for the construction.
Mr. Meyers asked about how long they wanted the sign up. Mr. Breech stated they were not
sure what the duration could be,but when the models were up the sign would come down. The
Commission decided on 9 months for the duration.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 00-117 WITH A LIMIT OF 9
MONTHS DURATION. MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Old Business:
Fred Abraham,456 South Main St. -Parking and Change of Siding
Mr..Dorman said the applicant has come back to the Planning Commission to discuss the
updated parking plan, and a modification he wants to make on his approved application.
A. Application Modification. Mr. Abraham said he wants to change the siding on the new
building on the south and east from vinyl to vertical steel siding. H{e showed a color sample.}
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO CONSIDER THIS A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING APPLICATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND IT
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
GPC members had questions about the exposed material on south and east side where siding
will stop, the porch, and the original proposal versus new proposal. Mr. Myers preferred that the
siding wrap around the corner a little bit because it's hard to change materials at a corner, and Mr.
Abraham agreed.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE PROPOSED MODIFICATION SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING (1)THAT THE STONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WRAP 4-6' ON
THE SOUTH SIDE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, AND (2)WE APPROVE THE
GPC,9/11/ 00,2
MODIFICATION TO VERTICAL METAL SIDING ON THE EAST AND SOUTH SIDES,WITH
THE COLOR AS INDICATED ON COLOR CHARTS PRESENTED TONIGHT. MR. BURRISS
SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
B. Parking Plan. There will be a 4'stone wall around the grassy area and trees put in by the
Villagea. ndrrSC-n¤CrECES- twala.th@NA-PA9-40Er@Mr.Myers thought there was too much space
between the pair ofparking bays and suggested sliding the parking back to offer a more gracious
entrance to the building. He suggested making a 10-12'sidewalk instead of 5'from the wall to the
start of the parking area.
Mr. Myers summarized Fred's commitment to screening the parking: 1 ()screen the parking
with a 4'U-shaped stone wall from sidewalk to sidewalk,and 2()slide parking 10'from building with
5' of concrete and 5' of grass.
A discussion ensued regarding the drainage on the property related to the suggestion to expand
the green space in the area where the proposed stone wall will be erected. The intent of the suggestion
was to decrease the amount of asphalt needed and create a more efficient parking system. Mr.
Abraham felt that the suggestion was creating problems because drainage in the area is not that good
with limited catch basins. Mr. Burriss felt that positive drainage could be maintained by not requiring
the stone wall to go sidewalk to sidewalk or adjusting the slope of the lot. Finally it was decided that
Fred would keep the green space the same size as he proposed.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS ( 1)THAT THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING BE 5'
WIDE,2 ()THERE BE A 5' GRASSL/ANDSCAPING STRIP BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND
PARKING LOT,3 ()THERE BE A 4'ARTIFICIAL LIMESTONE WALL MATCHING
MATERIALS USED ON BUILDING AROUND GRASS AREA SHOWN ON PROPOSAL WITH
THE WING WALLS ENDING 2'FROM SIDEWALK,AND ( 4)THAT THE PARKING BLOCKS
BE INSTALLED PER STANDARD ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS. MR. LUKCO
SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Dale E.McCoy,338 North Granger St. - GaraRe
Mr. Dorman stated that the proposal is to build a 24 x 28 foot garage at the back of the
driveway. The applicant at the request of the Planning Commission has come back with revised
drawings to incorporate the old structure into the new structure.
MR. LUKCO MOVED TO TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE;MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. McCoy said he has three cars to put in the garage,one of which will go in the back of the
proposed garage sideways,but only for storage during the winter months. Also the old shed and the
new garage will have different rooflines because the floor of the old building is 2' lower than floor of
new addition. The old building will have a walk-in door but no garage door, and the new garage will
have two 9' doors. The shed roof will be replaced.
Mr. Burriss noted the new garage will be modern,while the house is older and he
recommended consistency as much as possible. He asked for detail on the gable repeated to keep it
from looking like a standard two-car garage. Mr. McCoy said he considered repeating the cupola on
the house onto the garage.
Mr. Myers wanted to see complete details, showing doors and windows. The pitch of the roof
will be 6:12.
GPC,9/11/ 00,3
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE 00-113 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS: ( 1)THAT THE SHED ROOF ON THE EXISTING BUILDING WILL BE
REMOVED,2 ()THAT A VENT DETAIL WILL BE PUT ON THE FRONT OF THE NEW
GARAGE WHICH WILL COMPLIMENT THE VENT ON THE FRONT GABLE OF THE HOUSE,
3)THE NEW BUILDING WILL BE BUILT IMMEDIATELY AGAINST THE OLD BUILDING,
AND (4)THIS ENTIRE APPLICATION IS CONTINGENT UPON FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
DOORS AND WINDOWS AT A LATER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,AND THE
ITEMS TO SPECIFICALLY BE REVIEWED ARE LOCATION,SIZE, MATERIALS, AND
COLORS. MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Welcome to Granville"signs
GPC members had some questions after the last meeting's discussion, and the chair of the
Beautification Committee, Constance Barsky, was invited to discuss the sign with GPC.
She said sand-blasted cedar was definitely not recommended by the Beautification Committee.
The designer,Kelly, presented several designs including a similar design to the picture of the sign in
Granville, Massachusetts. The group thought this one was the most traditional with its lines, shape,
and simplicity. The committee felt the proportions were not quite right but the overall image was
liked. They liked the fan and the black on white color, having abandoned a green color. The GPC, the
other hand, would prefer a different image, such as a circle or a tree or leaves. The Beautification
Committee had not talked much about a date, but GPC members liked that idea, and Ms. Barsky said
her committee would probably not be opposed to that. Mr. Burriss preferred the more proportional
single post rather than the two posts. More discussion ensued on these items, and Mr. Myers
volunteered to work on a design for the next meeting. It was decided that this issue would probably be
a work session item for the next two GPC meetings.
Maximum Square Footage
rt 56 TI)
Mr. Salvage introduced a, elfscussion about the fact that it is hard for developers to plan a
building of less than 4,000 sq.ft/ and felt the zoning was too restrictive. Mr. Myers suggested he talk
to Village Council. Ms. Barsky said we have to consider what the citizens want, not the developers.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR "A"UNDER NEW
BUSINESS ( SOUTHGATE CORPORATION)AND "A"AND "B"UNDER OLD BUSINESS
ABRAHAM AND McCOY)AND FIND THAT THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT
SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS IDENTIFIED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF
AGENDA (SEPTEMBER 7, 2000).MR. LUKCO SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
GPC,9/11/ 00,4
Next Meeting: September 25, 2000
Adjournment:9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 10/23/00

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 23,2000
Minutes
DRAFT
Members Present:Jack Burriss, Richard Salvage, Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent:Keith Myers, Barbara Lucier
Also Present:Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:Linda Schwartz, Suzy Murr,Tim Snider,Ed Vance, C.K. Barsky, Bill and Lois
Wernet,Doug and Mistie Berschet
Citizens' Comments:None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of October 10, 2000: MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS
PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
Bill and Lois Fonnan Wernet. 134 S. Mulberry Street - Storm Doors
Mr. Dorman stated that applicant proposes to add white custom-made storm doors to the double
doors and the single door on the front porch Mr. Wernet added that there will be two solid glass
panels for the double doors. The glass is entirely plain, a tempered safety glass.
Mr. Wilkenfeld questioned if the doors would cover the transom, and he was told it would not.
Mr. Burriss mentioned that he has found that some protective doors aren't protecting the wood,because
the fit is so tight that the varnish is peeling off,and Mr. Wernet said that he would be concerned about
that but the doors are very porous. Mr. Burriss asked if handles would be installed on both of the
storm doors over the double door and he was told they would. Mr. Wilkenfeld commented that the
wood doors do not lose as much character with the chosen storm doors, and Mr. Wernet said that was
one of their goals.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 00-142 AS SUBMITTED. MR. BURRISS
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Douglas and Mistie Berschet.326 W. Maple Street -Addition
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants wish to make a two-story addition to the rear of the
house. He also mentioned that the applicant proposes to change the dimensions that were proposed on
the application from 18' x 19' to 20'x 19'.The addition would line up with the existing home at 4.3'
from the western property line and will require a variance from BZBA, which they will hear on
October 26, 2000.
Mr. Berschet talked about the materials to be used, and that the addition will be made to match
the color and trim of the existing home, the rooffine will match the existing, the chimney will have
siding, and there will some exposed foundation with landscaping around that. The applicant also
mentioned that an air conditioner will need to be installed.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 00-137 SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL
OF THE BZBA FOR THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
r
1
l
4%
Greg Ream Taylor Drugs)2.00 E.BroadwayT e-mporary sign
Mr. Dorman stated the applicant proposes to install a temporary contractor's sign towards the
front ofthe property at 200 East Broadway at the site where the construction ofTaylors Drugs will take
place. One note is that the proposed sign is 32 square feet,which will require a variance.
Mr. Snider said that the sign will be angled so it is facing both the Prospect and Broadway
frontages. It will be professionally done and the colors will be color matched to the old sign in front of
the existing store.
The members discussed how the Presbyterian Church was allowed multiple signs for their
addition project. Mr. Burriss said he thought the way they approved the church signs is that they are
on two frontages.
Mr. Burriss asked where on the property would the sign be and Mr. Snider said where the
existing light pole was. Mr. Burriss asked if it would be inside the construction fence and he was told
it would be.
Mr. Salvage said he felt like this was really 2 different signs;the announcement of Taylors
Drugs moving and the contractors sign.
Mr. Burriss asked how high is the construction fence and Mr. Snider told him 6 feet. Mr.
Burriss mentioned that the sign is 10 feet. Mr. Snider said that some of the sign will be screened by the
fence.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said that clearly this is two signs,and the contractors sign on the right is the
proper size.
Mr. Burriss asked where the posts would be located,and Mr. Snider told him behind the sign
using 4"square posts.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE ALLOWING THE COMBINATION OF THE
CONTRACTOR'S SIGN ALONG WITH THE INFORMATION SIGN,ABOUT THE MOVING OF
A BUSINESS, INTO A SINGLE SIGN,WHICH MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TWO
SIGNS,ON A TEMPORARY BASIS NOT TO EXCEED 9 MONTHS. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session
A)Welcome to Granville Signs
Ms. Barsky showed the group examples of fan-styled curvatures in some of the Village homes.
The Beautification Committee representatives still like the simplicity of the fanlight for the center
graphic.
One idea presented by Linda Schwartz is the reflection of a tree in the fanlight.
Ms. Murr voiced a concern with the political correctness of Mr. Meyer's sketch of the steeples
at the four corners as the main focus of the center graphic.
Mr. Burriss reiterated that everyone seemed to be in agreement regarding the sign's shape and
materials to be used.
Ms. Murr discussed her travels in the last couple weeks to several design firms in Columbus,
Ohio,to get their opinion on the original proposal, and they saw nothing wrong with it and stated that it
was a nice simple design.
Mr. Burriss asked Ms. Murr if the fanlight would be a stock item and she replied that because
Mr. Meyers came up with the graphic, the Beautification Committee was lead to believe it was
available.
Mr. Burriss reiterated that all were in agreement about the date.
Mr. Burriss began a discussion about which example had the most appropriate f"igure ground."
A short discussion ensued about the proper posts for the signs, and Mr. Burriss wished Mr.
Meyers was there to show some examples of posts.
Mr. Dorman retrieved examples of the Village of Granville stationery to show Ms. Barsky.
Ms. Barsky decided the stationery's fanlight was not what she remembered.
2
Mr. Burriss talked some more to Ms. Murr about the availability of the fanlight graphic the Beautification Committee liked so much.
Mr. Burriss asked the Beautification Committee representatives if they liked the spread version
of the fanlight more than the original version, and that possibly the spread version would be more readily available.
Mr. Dorman said he would like through his files to see if he could find a better version of the
fanlight graphic.
Mr. Burriss discussed the type of finish the group would like the sign to have. Ms. Murr asked
if a high sheen would create visibility concerns at night, and Mr. Burriss said you would not want a high sheen.
The group decided to conclude the meeting until the next Planning Commission Meeting, at
which they would start up the discussion again at 7:00 p.m.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE ITEMS A, B, AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS
AND FOUND THAT THE FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF
THE CODE AS PRESENTED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF OCTOBER 23. MR.
BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Next Meeting: October 23, 2000, 7:30 a.m. {Heritage Overlay District}
Adjournment: 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
3
3

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 10/10/00

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 10,2000
Minutes
DRAFT
MMeemmbbeerrss APbresseennt:t:CJaacrlk Burriss,Keith Myers,Richard Salvage,Barbara Lucier Wilkenfeld
Also Present:Seth Dorman,Village Planner,Joe Hickman,Village Manager Visitors Present:Mike Frazier,Connie Barsky,Steve Mershon,John Noblick,Rebecca Pierce,Susie Murr,Ruth Owen
Citizens'Comments:None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
New Business:
Rebecca Pierce. 116 East Broadwayr (ears)i-gn application buildingMr. Dorman stated that applicant proposes to put a 7-foot sandwich board sign at the rear ofthe as shown in the photographs.
applicanMt ssta.tLeudctiheartqiutewstiilol ned whether the sign will be placed where it is shown in the picture and the be as shown.
Mr. Myers questioned the dimensions ofthe sidewalk as shown. The applicant replied that there is little room currently available on the sidewalk but it is the only location option. Ms. Pierce stated that the sign will not be seen by a majority ofpeople but will be seen by the customers. replied thMatr.thSealvage questioned whether the black trees will show up on the red sun. The applicant sun would show.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 00-133 AS SUBMITTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
John Noblick,405 East College StreetA- C/Compressors
Mr.Dorman explained that the applicant proposes to locate two air conditioner compressor units soonutthheerenast side ofthe home. The northern most unit will be four feet from the property line and the most unit will be five feet from the property line. John Noblick added that the compressors will be less than three feet in height and the HVAC contractor does not guarantee efficient operation ifthe units are placed any further from the house. The best operation for the units is where shown. Mr. Burris questioned how close landscaping can get to the units and still have efficient performance. Eighteen inches from the home seems an acceptable distance. It would be problematic for the homeowner to have the units any closer to the home.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 00-134 AS SUBMITTED.MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Old Business:
None
Work Sessions
A)W "elcome to Granville"Signs
Mr.Myers displayed his W" elcome to Granville"sign changes to Ruth Owen,Connie Barsky, Mike Frazier,Joe Hickman and the Planning Commission. This work session is continued from the September 25th Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Myers does not like the sign application presented by the sign shop. Mr.Myers mentioned the fanlight issue,the significance ofthe fanlight,and the lack of examples on homes in the Village.Mr. Myers suggests using a circle or a more rounder shape. He stated that it is difficult to design a logo on a committee. Mr. Myers stated that the sign needs an appropriately styled G.
Ms. Owen likes the proposed picture because it exemplifies the rural character ofthe Village. She suggests letting someone else design the oval.
Mr. Salvage suggestedthat a date be added. The shape ofthe posts are acceptable. An oval and
color decision are needed.
Mr. Burriss raised the issue ofthe steeples. He likes the trees but not as many as proposed. He
suggests showing rural character in the foreground and steeples inthe background. The fences should be
kept to imply agriculture. He suggests keeping consistencywiththe oval. Mr.Burriss likes the strong
border ofthe oval rather than lines that simply stop.
Mr. Burriss mentioned that the less that is put on the sign,the stronger it will be. Mr.Burriss
stated that it would be helpful to establish strong precedent with the detail in the welcome sign which
would then establish future sign foundations. Consistency is necessary.
Ms.Owen questioned the size ofthe sign and asked how much ofthe oval will be seen.
Mr.Burriss suggested that ifthe oval is cleaner,it will serve to clear up the landscape.
Ms. Barsky does not prefer to separate the village and township. Therefore,both can be included
ifthe steeples and landscape are combined. The signs are proposed to be placed on township land. This
necessitates going to township trustees.
Ms. Owen questioned that ifsigns are placed along the Village line,people on the other side of
the sign to(wnship)will feel left out. It is important to look at whether the township wants the signs.
Mr. Burris likes the logo because it combines the Village and Township.
Mr. Hickman stated that there is value in having a smaller sign at corporation limits. This
produces a hierarchy in signs. One example is the sign Denison has on North Main. All agree it is
attractive.
Mr. Frazier suggested that a designer create a design and then present to the Planning
Commission.The Village is the applicant and should hire a designer. Ms. Murr feels all could agree on
someone to do it. One idea is to consolidate signs by combining with other organizations such as
Kiwanis.
Mr. Salvage recommends that the signs not be too cluttered. It is important to be cautious and not
to block vision with signs.
All agree that the sign vocabulary is acceptable. The post caps should be peaked and in copper
for a nice finish detail. A color( s)ofthe sign needs to be agreed on. Mr. Myers prefers blue and white in
the Village. Black on white is harder to read. Dark color with black lettering is a suggestion. Mr.
Salvage prefers not to get too much blachke w-ants to create a warmer feeling. Mr.Burriss stated that
complementary colors are important. Mr. Salvage wants varying options printed out.
Beautification Committee reasons on why particular sign was chosen:
1-Historically based
2-Not as redundant as what is going on in any suburb,etc.m (ainly cream and green colors)
3-Trying to keep consistent in color. This helps with directional information.
Ms. Barsky proposes that the Village design signs with different colors and come back for a
meeting. All plan to meet October 23 at 7 pm to have further discussion.
B)Discussion between Planner and Commission regarding Certified Oil,466 South Main Street.
Joe Hickman and Seth Dorman met with Andy Furr,the project manager for Certified last week. Mr.
Dorman requests ideas from the Planning Commission as to what the members like and do not like. Mr.
Dorman showed materials contributed by Mr.Furr.
Mr. Furr took pictures of a gas station in Hilliard,Ohio as an example. Certified proposes to put the
logo on the top ofthe store. All sign proposals would probably not meet the requirements ofthe code.
Mr. Furr prefers to go the brick route similar to the Hilliard store. Mr. Salvage prefers a gable roof
line for the building and canopy. Mr. Salvage stated that there should be no signage on the canopy.
Mr. Myers stated that Certified needs to design a smaller building and needs to take out the red color
shown. All agree with the logo but not in the red color shown.
Mr. Salvage stated that one problem in the past was applying to place a sign in the right ofway.
Certified has approached the Commission three to four times in the past. Mr. Salvage stated that at one
time,is'sues of parking spaces was a question. The positions at gas pumps count as parking spaces.
Mr. Burriss said he does not want to see neon signs in the windows. Mr. Dorman agreed that these
will not be allowed.
Other issues include necessary screening from the public right of for wall and hedge border which corresponds way. The Commission is looking with neighbor Fred Abraham's work. Another issue is the inability to build within the TCOD. This should not be a concern because the area has plenty of advertising as is. The Commission is encouraging monument signs on South Main.
C)Proposed Heritage Overlay District t(o replace TCOD)and amendment to Architectural Review Overlay District.
Mr. Myers suggests a separate meeting with nothing else on the agenda. Agreed meeting time is
Wednesday,October 25th at 7:30 a.m. Mr. Salvage mentioned that this should be advertised like any other meeting.
Other Business
An issue was raised by Mr. Myers regarding the sandwich board signs advertising Greystone
Antiques. The Commission had approved the sign at the time of South Main construction. Mr. Burriss
stated that the terms of the approval have not been met. The sign is up all the time and not solely for
mandated hours of operation. The signs are currently located in front of Park National Bank and one is
located on the corner of South Main Street and Broadway. Mr. Salvage suggested that the planner send a
letter to the owner mandating that the signs be removed. All were in agreement that the sign presence
creates a problem for the commission because the owner is taking a special privilege.
Mr. Myers raised the issue of drafting a resolution commending Bernie Lukco. Ms. Lucier stated
that a proclamation was completed at the last meeting. Mr. Salvage would like to have a thank you card
for all members to sign. Members questioned how to replace Lukco. Ms. Lucier replied that the opening
is advertised. The Council asks candidates to speak ifthey want to and then Village Council makes a
decision.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE ITEMS A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND
FOUND THAT THE FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE
AS PRESENTED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF OCTOBER 10. MR. BURRISS
SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of September 25: Moved to last on agenda. Page 4,McDonald's Investment Hearing. Add 'of
the top ofthe sign' to condition 2 so that it reads:T "hat the front ofthe sign be mounted with the flat part
of the top of the sign no more than 6'..."
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. MYERS
SECONDED,AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Next Meeting: October 23,2000
Adjournment: 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lindsey Royce
Memorandum
To: Granville Planning Commission
From: Seth T.Donnan, Village Planner
Date:
Re:
October 19,2000
GPC Regular Meeting on Monday,October 23, 2000, 7:30 p.m.
New Business
Administrative Actions:
A) Application: 001- 42Z -oning and Architectural Permit ApplicationS -torm doors.
Location: 134 S. Mulberry St.
Applicant: Bill and Lois Foreman-Wernet
Zoning: VRD, AROD
Use: Residential
Request:
To add storm doors to the three front doors. The three front doors include; a set of double doors
and one single door around the side of the porch
Relevant Sections:
Facts:
1159.01
1159.03
1161.01
1161.05
Village DistrictP -urpose and Intent
Village DistrictP -erformance or Development Standards
Architectural Review Overlay DistrictP -urpose and Boundaries
Architectural Review Overlay District -Standards and Criteria
The applicants propose to add storm doors to the three front doors on the house. The storm doors
will be white and will be custom made by Larson Storm Doors and are on order from Granville Lumber.
Please note that the storm doors will cover,not replace, the existing doors for added protection against
the elements.
Analvsis:
Section 1161.05 -Standards and Criteria.
a)Height. Not app# cab/ e.
b) Building massing. Not applicable.
c) Roof Shape. Not app#cab/ e.
d) Materials and texture: How do they relate to the surrounding buildings?Is this compatible
with the surrounding buildings?Not apphcab/ e.
Page 1
Planning
Commission
101/920/00 Planning Commission Memorandum
e) Use ofDetails: Are the details and materials appropriate?What is the overall design concept?
Thewhite storm doorsthat are proposedwouldclosely matchthewhitetrim oftheexisting
structure.
0 Use of Live Plant Material. Planting materials should be evaluated on their use for
accentuating and highlighting the architectural details ofscreening undesirable areas such as
vacant lots,parking and mechanical equipment. Not app# cab/ e.
g) Use of Landscape Design. Other elements of exterior design that may give the
projecst/tructure additional character.Lighting is particularly important. Not appc#abe/.
tv Enhancement of Pedestrian Environment. Where possible,elements,which can contribute
to the quality ofthe pedestrian environment and other public amenities, should be promoted.
Such items as benches,fountains,awnings,seating areas,arcades,)Pedestrian routes are
particularly important. Not applicable.
i) Signage. Important to communicate the character of the building and orientated to the
pedestrian. Not applicable.
Application:
Location:
Applicant:
Zoning:
Use:
Request:
001- 37Z -oning and Architedural Permit ApplicationR -ear addition
326 W.Maple St.
Douglas and Misty Berschet
VRD, AROD
Residential
To build an addition to the rear of the home.
Relevant Sections:
1159.01
1159.03
1161.01
1161.05
Village DistrictP -urpose and Intent
Village DistrictP -erformance or Development Standards
Architectural Review Overlay DistrictP -urpose and Boundaries
Architectural Review Overlay District -Standards and Criteria
Facts:
The applicant proposes to install a 342 sci. ft. addition to the rear of the home. The addition would
line up with the existing structure at 4.3ft. from the western property line.
Please note: The application requires a variance from the side setback. The applicant has applied for
a variance and will go before the BZBA on October 26, 2000.
Analysis:
Section 1161.05 -Standards and Criteria.
a) Height. The height of the building should be measured at the ridgeline of the parapet. All new
construction shall be at the average height of the existing adjacent buildings. The proposed
addition to the rear ofthe home will be slightly shorterthan the existing structure and should
adequately blend into the existing structure.
b) Building massing. In evaluating building massing, such characteristics as the relationship of
Page 2
B
101/92/000 Planning Commission Memorandum
the building width to the building height, the buildings relationship to surrounding setbacks, the relationship to the surrounding buildings, and the spaces which are created by the building and the scale relationship are to be evaluated. 77ie height ofthe building,as stated earlier,is slightly shorter than the existing structure. The addition will line up with the existing structure at 4.3 feet from the westem property line. The scale of the new addition is proportionate to the existing structure.
c) Roof Shape. Roof shape is particularly significant in low buildings or buildings which will be seen from a distance or from above. The roofline of the proposed addition will be slightly below that ofthe existing structure,thereby not visible from the roadway,however the shape of the roof is consistentwith the existing structure and should nicely blend into the existing rooflines. d) Materials and texture: How do they relate to the surrounding buildings?Is this compatible with the surrounding buildings?77}e materials and texture to be used on the rear addition will
closely match that ofthe existing structure. The look and feel of the existing building will be duplicated with the new addition.
e) Use of Details: Are the details and materials appropriate?What is the overall design
concept?In evaluating building details, the primary concern is for appropriateness to scale and the overall design concept of the building and its environment. Once again,the rear addition
will closely match that of the existing structure,thereby constituting a good use of details used to maintain the integrity of the existing architecture..
f) Use of Live Plant Material. Planting materials should be evaluated on their use for
accentuating and highlighting the architectural details of screening undesirable areas such as vacant lots, parking and mechanical equipment. Not applicable.
g) Use of Landscape Design. Other elements of exterior design that may give the
projects/tructure additional character. Lighting is particularly important. Not applicable.
h) Enhancement of Pedestrian Environment. Where possible, elements, which can contribute
to the quality of the pedestrian environment and other public amenities, should be promoted.
Such items as benches, fountains, awnings, seating areas, arcades,)Pedestrian routes are particularly important. Not applicable.
i) Signage. Important to communicate the character of the building and orientated to the
pedestdan. Not applicable.
Application: 001- 49 S-ign Permit ApplicationT -emporary Contractors sign.
Location: 200 E. Broadway
Applicant: Greg Ream (Taylor Drug)
Zoning: VBD, AROD
Use: Commercial
Request:
To install a temporary contractors sign towards the front of the 200 E. Broadway site
where the construction of Taylor Drug will take place.
Relevant Sections:
1189.01
1189.05
1189.07
SignsP -urpose and intent
SignsG -eneral requirements
SignsT -emporary signs
Page 3
A.
C
101/920/00 Planning Commission Memorandum
Facts:
The applicant proposes to install a 32sq.ft.temporary contractors sign at the location ofthe new
Taylor Drug at 200 E. Broadway. The dimensions ofthe sign are 4 x 8ft.,with a height of 10ftfrom the
average grade. The distance from the edge of the pavement to the sign will be 15ft. The sign itselfwill
be %plyw"ood with 4x4"wood posts, all painted. The sign will have a black and white background,with
black and white lettering. A color example of the sign is in your packet.
Analvsis:
Section 1189.01 -Purpose and Intent.
The purpose of the sign regulations is to accomplish the following.
a) To protect the general safety and welfare.
W Provide for attractive and orderly appearance.
c) Encourage compatible and well planned graphics.
Section 1189.05 - General Requirements.
Signs shall not be placed or may not extend within 10ft.from the edge of the existing pavement or
in streets or rides of way,which ever is greater. The proposed temporary contracMrsign sha#s#
15ft.off the edge of Broadway' s pavement.
Section 1189.07 - Temporary Signs.
b) Contractor signs. One sign announcing the names of the contractors,sub contractors and
material suppliers participating in the construction ofthe building may be permitted during the
actual construction period. Provided that such sign shall be located only on the parcel of land
being developed and that such sign shall be limited to 16 sci. ft. in sign area, be no more than
10ft. high and a minimum of 15ft. from the established rights of way. 771e proposed sign is to
be 32sq.ft.and as such will need avariance from the sign regulation. It is proposedto be 10ft.
so the height is not an issue and shall be placed 15ft.from the edge ofthe pavementon
Broadway.
Page 4
l

Thursday
Jun092016

GPC 11/13/00

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 13,2000
Minutes
DRAFT
Members Present: Members Jack Burriss, Barbara Lucier,Keith Myers,Richard Salvage Absent:Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present:Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present: C.K. Barsky,Ruth Owen,Dan Rogers,Leta Ross,Rodger Kessler,Thomas LDaicwksyoenr,Dave Rutledge,Wade Evans,Mary E. Bline,Dan Spence,Dennis Percy,Julie Bullock,David
Citizens'Comments:None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
The meeting opened at 7 p.m. for a Work Session on Welcome to Granville Signs. The halfh-our discussion included the center graphic, the posts,whether other information should be included, such as Rotary and Kiwanis Clubs, and street signs. Consistency is very important.
Mr. Myers will do some redesigning and bring in samples at the next meeting. The group liked the hanging sign design, and preferred dark green signs with white letters. The shape of the center graphic needs some reworking.
The group will meet again on Monday,December 11, at 7 p.m.
Minutes of October 23,2000: MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS
PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of November 1 will be considered at the next meeting.
New Business:
Dan Rogers.210 East Maple Street -Modification
Mr. Dorman stated that Mr. Rogers is requesting a modification to Application 0#0-106 to
widen the driveway and to use brick instead of concrete on the driveway. Mr. Rogers added that the
brick will look nicer, and later he may to use brick on the patio that was also approved with this
application.
Mr. Myers discussed the previously approved application with Mr. Dorman and realized that
this request is a pretty minor modification, and that a motion would have to be approved stating that it
is a minor modification.
There was a short discussion about what would hold the driveway up, and Mr. Rogers said he
would probably pour a curb, and Mr. Myers suggested that a brick restraint would work well and be
cheaper than pouring a curb.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT 00-106M IS A MINOR MODIFICATION. MR. BURRISS
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Rogers asked if, at a later date,he wanted to change the slab in back to brick would he
have to return, and GPC agreed to give him the option to do it now.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION OF APPLICATION # 00-106 TO
ALLOW FOR A DRIVEWAY WIDTH OF 9'6"AND TO GIVE THE APPLICANT THE OPTION
TO USE BRICK ON THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONCRETE SURFACES. MR. BURRISS
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
,9
Granville Planning Commission -2
Behal Sampson Dietz,130 South Mulberry Street.R -emodeling
Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposes to modify the home's interior,add a
gabled one-story addition on the second floor at the location ofthe existing deck,and to create a
more traditional roofform on the east elevation.
Ms. Bullock,the project's Architect,said that project is not adding additional square
footage to the footprint,it is just adding on top ofan existing piece.
After a brief discussion amongst themselves, they Planning Commission proceeded with a
motion.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION0 #01-41 AS SUBMITTED. MR.
BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Lumber.401 South Main Street F-ence and Landscaping
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant proposes to change the fence line at the rear of the
property,to light and landscape the existing sign,to install a lighted flagpole and landscape the front of
the building, and to replace the rail fence on both sides of the south entrance. Mr. Lawyer,of Granville
Lumber,said they only thing he would add is that originally they proposed to mount the flagpole light
on the side of the building, and after talking to his lighting engineer,he is now proposing to use a
ground mounted light, and he gave Planning Commission members a copy of the light he would like to
use.
Mr. Myers asked Mr. Lawyer why he chose to use a vinyl fence on the south entrance to the
lumberyard and Mr. Lawyer replied that it would stay whiter and brighter longer and it would not have
to be painted. Mr. Myers asked Mr. Lawyer if they could extend the landscaping beyond the front of
the building to help screen these fences and he said he could.
Ms. Lucier asked about the size of the flag and Mr. Lawyer told her it would be a standard size
flag.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 00-152,WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS: ( 1)THAT THE LIGHT FOR THE FLAGPOLE BE GROUND MOUNTED PER
THE ILLUSTRATION PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT THIS EVENING, AND (2)THAT THE
APPLICANT EXTEND THE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FENCE TO THE IMMEDIATE
SOUTH OF THE BUILDING. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Geor2e Wade Evans.134 North Pearl Street F-ence
Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposes to install a picket fence around the property's
perimeter. Mr. Evans said he wants to encompass the entire perimeter with 42"picket fence and tie in
to the wall. It will be set back 1' from sidewalk and will be angled at the corner to provide safety. The
fence will be painted white in the spring. The applicant did not know how far apart the pickets are, and
Mr. Myers said spacing and style should match the fence at 201 N. Pearl. The cap style has not yet
been selected, and Mr. Evans will bring it in later.
Mr. Burriss is concerned about the gates since they are not drawn here, and feels they need to
be more than just a section of the fence. Perhaps they could echo the arch over the windows. Mr.
Myers felt they should be different by themselves, and Mr. Salvage added that the 4"posts should go
inside the gate.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION0 #0-153, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ( 1)THAT THE WIDTH OF THE PICKETS AND THE SPACING
MATCH THE EXISTING FENCE ON THE NE CORNER OF PEARL AND E. COLLEGE
2
Granville Planning Commission -3
STREETS,2 ()THAT THE GATES BE MOUNTED AND LATCHED TO STANDARD POSTS USED FOR THE FENCE,3 ()THAT THE APPLICANT HAS THE OPTION TO SQUARE OFF THE FENCE BETWEEN PEARL STREET AND THE HOUSE,AND 4( )THAT THE APPLICANT BRING IN POST CAPS AND GATE DESIGN FOR FINAL APPROVAL BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ross IGA,484 South Main Street S-ign
Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposes to install a ground sign in front ofthe Ross IGA that would include a list of businesses in that shopping center. Mr. Kessler gave each of the Planning Commission members a copy ofthe landscaping plan. One member asked about the existing sign and Mr. Kessler said that would come down.
One member asked what sandblasted foam was,and Mr. Kessler said that was the original plan,but they will use a doublef-aced aluminum sign with cutout letters and panels pin- mounted to the sign. There will be groundm- ounted lighting hidden in the landscaping. The sign will use a reflex blue,the IGA red and a tan colors.
There was some discussion as to whether or not the Village Council would have to
approve the sign:being placed in the right-of-way,and Mr. Dorman said he would check with the Village Manager.
Mr. Myers suggested making the background of the lower half all blue instead of tan like
the upper halc and the tenant panels could still have the lighter blue outline, which would draw them out more.
Mr. Burriss noted that the Granville Lumber sign has posts on either side. He mentioned
that Planning Commission is trying to achieve a consistency in Village signage and thinks the
posts should be moved from in between the sign's sides to either side ofthe signs.
Mr. Salvage would prefer posts on the outside of the sign, and Mr. Kessler thinks they
can do that and play with color and sizes.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 00-154,WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS: ( 1)THAT THE CHANGE OF MATERIALS TO ALUMINUM IS
APPROVED,WITH 12/"THICK LETTERING MOUNTED ON THE TOP HALF,2 ()THAT
THE TENANT PANELS ON THEBOTTOILL*H' AVE A DARK BLUE BACKGROUND
AND WILL BE OUTLINED IN A LIGHT BLUE AS INDICATED ON THE SUBMISSION,
3)THAT SQUARE POSTS WILL BE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SIGN,WITH A CAP
DETAIL SIMILAR TO WHAT IS BEING USED ON THE VILLAGE ENTRANCE SIGNS
POSTS CAN BE EITHER DARK BLUE OR TAN)4, )T(HAT THE SIGN WILL BE
LLUMINATED BY GROUND LIGHT CONCEALED IN THE LANDSCAPING,AND (5) .
THAT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN AS SUBMITTED TONIGHT IS APPROVED. MR.
BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
David and Stacv Dickson,235 North Pearl Street -Fence.
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants propose to wood board fence around the yard,
which would replace existing fence. Mr. Dickson said they will be keeping the shrubbery,and a
gate will be replaced. The fence will be 72"in the side and rear yards and the front yard gate will
be 42"w,ill be treated lumber and 4 x 4"posts,to be stained a natural brown in the spring. The
color is to be submitted to the Village Planner. The neighbor has no objections to the fence.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 00-155, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1)THAT THE FENCE IS 72"IN OVERALL HEIGHT
ALONG THE SIDE AND BACK AND 42"IN THE FRONT,AND ( 2)THAT THE FENCE
4
3
WILL HAVE TO BE STAINED AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME WITH A COLOR TO BE h,
DECIDED LATER»AND SUBMIT THE COLOR TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR.
BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Marv E.Bline.Greystone Antiques.128 South Main Street -Sandwich Board Signs
Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposes to install duplicate sandwich board signs,
promoting the phone number and hours of operation of Greystone Antiques,both in front of the
business on South Main Street,and in front of the bank on East Broadway. Ms. Bline found out during
the construction of South Main Street when the Village Manager allowed her to place a sandwich board
sign on East Broadway that it helped bring customers to her shop. Ms.Bline said she is only asking to
have the sign up on East Broadway during the weekends. If she is not granted a sign on Broadway,she
recommended erecting a joint identification sign for businesses off Broadway.
Mr. Burriss remarked that the sign was not always taken down at night. Also,the code
specifies no off-premise signs. Mr. Myers supports the joint directory sign to eliminate a proliferation
of sandwich boards, but that is up to the Village.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION0 #0-157,SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1 ()THE SANDWICH BOARD SIGN PROPOSED TO BE PLACED
ON EAST BROADWAY NOT BE ALLOWED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Denison University.800 Sunset Hill - New Building
Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant proposed to build the fourth of four residence halls on
Sunset Hill.
GPC approved the first three residence halls of a series of four,and Denison now wants to
build the fourth hall. Mr. Perry said it would match the others in appearance and materials. The
existing parking lot will be extended for an additional 90 parking slots.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS
SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE ITEMS A THROUGH H UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND
FINDS THAT THE FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE
CODE AS PRESENTED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF NOVEMBER 9, 2000. MR.
BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Pinehurst Sign Lighting
George Manning from the Association said they would like to put a single light at each
sign at the entrance ofthe development. The lighting is to be like the Bryn Du signs,and they
need to know what wattage to light it with. Mr. Myers suggested no more than 75-100 watts and
landscape lighting to camouflage lights. Mr. Burriss has no problem with the lighting but asked
what is happening to the pine trees. Mr. Manning said they are dying from some kind of blight.
The Village Planner can approve the lights when they come for approval.
Next Meeting:November 27, 2000, 7:00 p.m. E(ntrance Signs)
Adjournment:8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen