Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 12/9/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 9, 2002
 Amended Minutes

Members Present:  Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris
(Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Jack Burriss
Citizens Present:  Susan & Doug Rockwell, Bernardita
Llanos, Chuck & Lisa Whitman, Dennis Cauchon, Barb
Hammond, Kirsten Pape
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of November 13, 2002:  Postponed until next
meeting.

New Business:  

Susan and Doug Rockwell, 129 West Broadway – Fence and
Arbor
    
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants wish to install a
western wood cedar fence and arbor with 2’ sections of
fencing between garage and house. It will be 15’ long, and
the finished side will face the street. No variances are
necessary.
Mr. Rockwell said the fence and arbor will be stained
white to match picket fence in the back.  Ms. Rockwell
added that there will be a gate.  A previous fence was
taken down to allow room for a patio. The fence will have
a moon gate and two fence sections and will be 5’ tall at
its highest point.  
 
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-151 AS
PRESENTED.   MR.WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Bernardita Llanos, 222 South Prospect Street – Fence

    Mr. Dorman stated that the application is to
install two sections of fence, 3’6” tall.  One would be
21’ long and the other 24’ long.  No variances are needed.
    Kirsten Pape showed drawings and showed where the
fence and parking and landscaping would be located.  The
two-board fence will be 3’6” high.  She explained that it
will be a pressure treated natural color and will weather
for a year.  Mr. Parris thought that pressure treated
would not lend itself to become more attractive with age,
whereas cedar will weather.  Ms. Pape said they could put
in a gray pigment.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-152 WITH THE
STIPULATION THAT THE FENCE BE STAINED A COLOR APPROPRIATE
TO THE HOUSE, WITH A YEAR TO STAIN IT.  MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Chuck Whitman, 130 North Prospect Street – Change of Use

    Mr. Dorman said the application is to change the
use from a hair salon to a frozen custard shop.  The
category will change from A, “Service,” to D, “Food,
beverage and drugs.”  
    Mr. Whitman added that the frozen custard is a
Midwestern product, about 10% butterfat with egg and honey
added.  There will be no inside seating and will also sell
hot dogs, barbecue, and soda.  Columbus has a small chain
of frozen custard shops.  The Whitmans have been in the
food service business 21 years and have purchased a home
here.  The frozen custard is made fresh daily.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-154 FOR A
CHANGE OF USE AS PRESENTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Chuck Whitman, 130 North Prospect Street – Window and
Sidewalk Signs

    For the above-noted business, two signs are
requested:  (1) 2’ x 4’ wooden sidewalk sign with green,
red, and white letters.  This sign will have a removable
insert for daily featured flavors.  It will only be
outside when store is open.  (2) Window Sign 22”x46”, with
colors to match those on the awning.  He did not know yet
whether it would be painted or vinyl.  Mr. Salvage said we
don’t have a preference, but a painted sign would last
longer. Usually a sign company will give a sign rendering
with colors, and he would like Mr. Dorman to take a look
at it. Colors on both signs will match each other and the
awning.
    Looking at the store hours, Mr. Dorman asked if
that could be an insert in case they change, and Mr.
Whitman said sure.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-155 WITH THE
STIPULATION THAT ONCE THE APPLICANT HAS RENDERINGS FROM A
SIGN CONTRACTOR, HE WILL SHOW IT TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER
FOR FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway – Shed Remodeling

    The application is for two window additions to
convert the potting shed into living space.  He also wants
to build a firewood shed.  One stipulation is that it
should not be used as living space for a second family.
    Dennis Cauchon said this space would be for an
office or a play place for his kids.  It will have no
plumbing.  
    Mr. Parris asked about the color of the woodshed
and was told it would have cedar shingles on top and the
color will match the house.  He wants to change windows to
4 over 4, double hung and asks for a little flexibility.  
They will be roughly the same size, but all three windows
will match.  He is only replacing those already there and
one new window on the side.  Windows on ends will match.  
    The porch is not part of this application.  Mr.
Salvage wants a rendering at such time that the porch is
desired.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-158 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THAT THE 3 WINDOWS TO BE
REPLACED ON THE REAR OF THE POTTING SHED BE MATCHING
WINDOWS; (2) THAT THE CASEMENT WINDOW TO BE ADDED TO ONE
END WILL MATCH AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO THE CASEMENT
WINDOW ON THE OTHER END OF THE STRUCTURE; (3) THAT THE
FIREWOOD SHED WILL EITHER BE WEATHERED CEDAR OR PAINTED TO
MATCH THE COLOR OF THE POTTING SHED; AND (4) THAT THE
APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THERE WILL BE NO PLUMBING IN THE
STRUCTURE AND WILL NOT BE USED AS LIVING SPACE.  MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Barb Hammond, 123 East Broadway – Window Signs and
Sidewalk Sign

    Mr. Dorman said this is a modification to add a
2x4 plastic sidewalk sign and a pair of window signs to
the previous canopy sign application.  There will be two
identical 20”x9” signs, one on either side of the door,
with vinyl cut letters.  She will need a variance for the
number of signs, since 4 are allowed, and she has 5:  
Canopy front, Canopy on rear, window sign to the right,
window sign to the left, and sidewalk sign.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that the signs are small and
tasteful.  Mr. Parris asked whether we normally consider
the sidewalk sign as part of the building signage or as a
separate issue.  Mr. Dorman said 4 signs per storefront
are allowed, and in his opinion it’s an individual sign
and contributes to the signage for the store.  Mr.
Wilkenfeld does not feel comfortable in this situation,
and Mr. Parris questions why now we are including sidewalk
signs as part of the building signage since we have not
done this before.  Mr. Dorman stated that one obstacle is
interpretation of the code.  Understandings of the code
change, and he does not think it became an issue of
variance but we did count the sidewalk sign at the
bakery.    Mr. Parris feels we should have a discussion to
decide if changing to the way you are talking
(interpreting the sign code) is the way we need to go in
the future and why.  Mr. Dorman said zoning officials have
to decide what the intention of the code is.  The sidewalk
sign is not a permanent sign but only open when the store
is open, Mr. Wilkenfeld added, so how do you categorize
it?    Mr. Salvage thought we should find this application
in compliance.  
    Ms. Hammond said the sign would be located close
to the building so as not to impede pedestrian traffic.  
    Mr. Dorman asked whether in the future the
sidewalk sign would be changed to omit “Now Open” and the
hours.   Any changes will have to return to GPC.   She
said the letters are magnetic and easily changed.    Ms.
Lucier does not think a sidewalk sign is even needed,
since people know about it, and Ms. Hammond said at
certain times of the day it can look like they are not
open and she especially wants it present on Sundays.  

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO FIND APPLICATION #02-124M2 TO BE A
MINOR MODIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL PERMIT.  MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-124M2 AS
PRESENTED.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Parris wants the sidewalk sign interpretation issue
added to the agenda of a short future meeting.

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
FOR ITEMS A,B,C,D,E UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND ITEM A UNDER
OLD BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE
RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE
VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF DECEMBER 5.  MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:15 p.m.
Next Meetings:  January 13 and 27  

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 11/25/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 25, 2002
 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main,
Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl
Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: none
Citizens Present:   Ted Handel, John Minsker, Walt Denny,
Tim Riffle, Miles Waggoner, Mary Milligan
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of October 28, 2002:  Mr. Dorman added comments
from the tape onto Page 3 for clarity.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MS.
LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of November 13, 2002:  Page 3, Line 12,
after “batten strips,” add for the garage door.

    Page 4, in Paragraph (2), Mr. Salvage asked Mr.
Dorman to look into whether we could record restrictions
that would be delivered to anyone when they buy a new
house.  They should know they are buying in a historic
district.

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

New Business:  

Mound City Products, 120 Westgate Drive – Canopy Sign
    
Mr. Dorman explained that the previous ground sign has
been taken down, and the applicant wants approval for a
canopy sign on the valance already installed.  A variance
is necessary for size of the canopy sign, which is ca.
12.7 sq.ft. and 6’ is maximum.
Ted Handel said the letters are 8.7” high and the length
is ca. 17.’5”.  Letters are light beige on the brown,
light green and beige canopy.  
Ms. Lucier asked if there is a reason why the sign was
installed before approval was granted, and Mr. Handel said
they talked and when he returned back from a trip, the
awning was up, so he got a letter from the Village Planner.
    Mr. Main had gone to look at it and he would
support the variance in that this building is pretty far
from the street, and a smaller sign would hardly be
visible from the road.  Mr. Wilkenfeld added that there is
not much traffic on Westgate.  When Ms. Lucier looked at
it, it did not seem overly large.  She would suggest a
compromise of removing the two logos to make it smaller.  
Mr. Salvage said if this was a wall sign, they would be
entitled to have 66 sq.ft.    
    Mr. Parris could argue for a variance based on the
fact there is no other wall sign.  He would rather see an
awning sign than a big plastic sheet.
    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.  
N/A  
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.  .Mr. Parris stated that undue privilege is not
conferred if you consider that we have a 10.6 sq.ft. sign
which is the only sign identifying that building and the
fact that the applicant could be granted a much larger
wall sign.
    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.  No, it would not.

Mr. Salvage asked if they are going to install a wall
sign, and the answer was No, only if they get a tenant for
upstairs.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE A VARIANCE ON APPLICATION
#02-150 BASED ON SECTIONS 1147.03 (D) AND (E) OF THE
ZONING CODE.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-150 WITH
THE CONDITION THAT THIS WILL BE THE ONLY SIGN FOR MOUND
CITY PRODUCTS ON THE FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING.  MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Methodist Church – Material and Color
    Mr. Dorman noted that the previous approved
approval was conditioned on final approval of the exterior
lighting package and color for stucco.

    Materials:  Miles Waggoner showed the stucco
sample material and color for east and south elevations.  
He described how decorative tile will be used.  He said it
is very difficult to match colors and materials exactly so
they are distinguishing the old from the new to make a
nice contrast. John Minsker added it’s just enough of a
contrast to make a big difference.  The original was built
in 1924.  
    Mr. Burriss asked for details on window colors and
was told it would be a dark bronze as a contrast with the
stucco.  It is not trim work per se.

Lighting:  John Minsker showed the actual lighting fixture
to be used with the exception that it will be fluorescent
rather than incandescent.  It will be painted bronze to
match the window bronze.  There are two located on each
side of the Broadway window, the color is satin bronze
SB2.  The four lights on Linden are on each side of the
window, one lighting the elevator entrance, and one on the
north.  On the Main Street elevation they have two,
located on each side of the posts that match those on the
opposite side.  One light will be on the Educational
Building.  At present there are two wrought iron lights on
the Broadway entrance.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld asked if they would consider
lighting the front from the ground rather than the wall,
and the answer was No. Mr. Waggoner said they would put
the lights on a timer to go off after midnight.
    Mr. Burriss asked about the downspouts, and the
men did not know the color to be used but thought it would
be about the same as the window frames.  There should be
some relationship and coordination between them, stated
Mr. Burriss.     Mr. Salvage wondered whether the lights
could be dark bronze also, and Mr. Parris did not think
that they have to match as long as it is in the same color
family.  
    Mr. Wilkenfeld was concerned that the new part is
going to be lit up and seen more than the old part, and
that is why he thought of highlighting. John Minsker said
they had thought of lighting these two windows from inside
and asked whether Mr. Wilkenfeld would be more comfortable
with lights on the Broadway side and Mr. Wilkenfeld would
be.  It is an especially beautiful building and you really
want to be looking at those stained glass windows. He
asked. “If you put all these lights on the new building
and you think that is too much, would you consider
removing some of them?”  John Minsker said they match
lights inside.  Mr. Parris liked the idea of lighting the
alley and thinks there is enough distinction between the
old building and the educational building.  They are only
putting one light there.  They might want to consider 2
rather than 4 on the front side.  Mr. Minsker asked that
since there is no sidewalk there, would you be comfortable
with no lights.  And Mr. Wilkenfeld would like to see the
lights off there.   Mr. Waggoner would be willing to give
up the 4 lights on the front.  Mr. Parris stated they
could be scaled down to 2.  Mr. Waggoner would rather not
put on any so they are highlighting the back to the
parking lot.
    Mr. Burriss would be comfortable with Mr. Dorman
approving colors of lighting fixtures.  We need sample of
downspouts and window trim to see how it works with the
lights.  Colors need to be in the same family.
    The applicants agreed to remove 4 lights off the
front façade.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE LIGHTING AND WALL DETAILS
FOR APPLICATION #01-049:  1) THE STUCCO COLOR AND TEXTURE
WILL BE AS PER SAMPLES PROVIDED AT THIS MEETING; AND 2)
THE LIGHT FIXTURES WILL BE BY VISTA LIGHTING.  THE PATTERN
AS PER THE EXHIBIT PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT USING TWO (2)
13 WATT FLOURESCENT BULBS AND THE COLOR BEING SATIN
BRONZE.  THE APPLICANT IS ALSO AGREEING TO REMOVE THE FOUR
(4) LIGHT FIXTURES FROM THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF THE NEW
ADDITION TO THE BUILDING.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:  Mark Milligan, 212 East Elm St. – Garage

    Mary Milligan stated that her husband had a heart
attack, so Tim Riffle will present the proposed
application.  He said they want a two-car 24’x28’ 1½ story
garage for storage.  They want to keep as much green space
as possible and lot coverage would be about 35%.  It will
have a metal roof, Dutch lap siding, and a concrete
driveway.  It is 1’ from the rear property line.  A
pergola will help shield the garage, and there is a fence
and big shrubs.  
    Ms. Lucier thinks it would be an attractive
structure but it does not seem to have much to do with the
way the house looks.  Mr. Burriss had similar concerns;
the oval window is a beautiful one but it’s of a more
refined vocabulary than what could be found on the house.  
For the finials there are lots of examples of garages not
matching houses.  Mr. Ripple said right across the alley
is a garage that was moved and it does not fit.  Mr.
Burriss said it does not have to match exactly but should
be similar.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld likes the way the garage looks on
the alley, which is one of the nicest parts of the
village, and he hopes the applicant “will not mess up.”  
    Mr. Ripple said the garage doors may change
slightly.  This is an overhead door similar to those at
Monomoy.  They have not thought of colors, but Mrs.
Milligan thought it would match the back shed.  They had
not thought of a textured driveway.
    Mr. Parris said that given the look of the alley
and the look of the garage, if they could go with textured
concrete with a color in it, it would really complement
what you are doing along the alley.
    Mr. Burriss said if you are going to do any
lighting, there may be a couple of lights; we will need to
look at them.  (And gutters and downspouts.)  

Finding of Fact:

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM
A UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Mound City) AND ITEM A UNDER OLD
BUSINESS (Methodist Church), AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT
WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED
IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF NOVEMBER 22.  MS. LUCIER
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:37 p.m.
Next Meetings:    December 9.  We will tentatively cancel
the meeting on December 23.  

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 11/13/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 13, 2002
 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main,
Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair)
Members Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld
Citizens Present:   Sharon Sellitto, Joe Hickman, Ned
Roberts, Scott     Hickey, George Evans, Brian Newkirk
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of October 28, 2002:
Ms. Lucier brought up a confusing phrase on Page 3, Line
5, about the fact that Mr. Dorman “has the authority to
cite…”  This topic will be discussed later in this
meeting, so approval of minutes was postponed until next
meeting.

New Business:

George & Mary Evans, 126 S. Cherry Street – Fence

    Mr. Dorman has initiated a new video system,
whereby he photographs a property on the agenda to clarify
what the site looks like. This historic wrought iron fence
was previously installed next door and before that it was
at the Opera House. The fence is 28 ½” high and is about
1’ from the sidewalk.    
 It is already installed, much to the despair of Sharon
Sellitto, who had to return to GPC three times with her
own application.  She thought everybody should be treated
the same, and she was surprised to see how quickly the
applicant received a permit.  Although Ms. Evans said she
wanted to install it before it rusted, Ms. Sellitto said
it would not have rusted that quickly.  Joe Hickman said
Ms. Evans came to speak with him and she did try to go
through the process, and he wanted to be sure GPC was
aware of this fact.  He also wanted GPC to try to find a
process by which to streamline the application process.
Mr. Parris has no problem with the fence but he does have
a concern that the applicant did not go through the
correct process.  We have a lot of applications where
people have not received a permit or where they have put
up something other than what was approved. One reason for
a hearing is so that neighbors may have an opportunity to
express their concerns. Ms. Evans did speak to her
neighbors, who had no objections. One reason we see so
many after-the-fact applications or divergences is that
our Village Planner is conscientious about enforcement of
the zoning code.
Mr. Salvage thinks the fence is fine but it is unfortunate
it went through the process the way it did, but Ms. Evans
gets credit for trying to go through the Village Manager.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-142.  MS.
LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Brian & Leslie Newkirk, 226 East Broadway – Identification
Sign

Mr. Dorman said the application is for a 2’x 6” hanging
identification sign at the back entrance of the front
porch for a separate tenant.  It will be off white with
green lettering to match the Newkirk sign in front.  The
chain will be the same only lighter in weight.
Mr. Newkirk apologized for applying for an after-the-fact
permit, but he has done so many things, he didn’t realize
he was remiss in this area.  The tenant was anxious to
have a sign put up quickly.
Mr. Burriss noted there is consistency between the two
signs.  When Ms. Lucier stated that only name and address
signs are permitted and this sign below the originally
approved projecting sign has an advertisement hanging from
it, Mr. Dorman said he and Mr. Salvage discussed this and
decided it was suitable.  A projecting sign can have
commercial messages.  

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-143 AS
SUBMITTED.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Scott Hickey, 212 S. Main Street – Signs

The application is for several signs:  (1) new 9.65 sq.ft.
sidewalk plastic sandwich board sign in the ROW with
attachable panels;  (2) In the front of the Elms, a
proposed wall sign to be located under Cricket Hall’s
sign; (3) another Bakery wall sign to be attached to
stairs at the landing; (4) a valance sign on the canopy
over the door.  Variances will be needed for the oversized
sandwich board and total number of wall signs.
    Mr. Parris noted that for Sign (1), there are so
many sandwich boards in town, couldn’t this one be
adjusted to fit within the code.  The 4 detachable
messages with a little handle bring it over 8 sq.ft., and
members discussed ways to bring this under compliance.  
Mr. Burriss was concerned about visibility by cars leaving
the Elms parking lot.  He suggested eliminating the
word ‘THE’ to allow space for the detachable signs, and
Mr. Salvage suggested approving the sign conditionally and
allowing the Village Planner to approve final design.
    Regarding the total number of signs for one
business, (2) and (3) are incidental entrance signs and
could be combined as one sign and are crucial to direct
customers to the Bakery.  
    Mr. Burriss wanted Sign (3) moved farther away
from the garbage can.  
    MR. PARRIS MOVED FOR THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE
FOR APPLICATION #02-144 TO ALLOW 3 VERSUS 1 WALL SIGN AT
THE ESTABLISHMENT.  IT IS OUR FINDING THAT TWO OF THE
SIGNS MAY FALL INTO THE INCIDENTAL SIGNS CATEGORY, BUT WE
ARE APPROVING A VARIANCE JUST TO BE SAFE AND LEGAL.   MS.
LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  
MR. PARRIS APPLIED THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE TO THE
APPLICATION:

A.  That special circumstances or conditions exist which
are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and
which are not applicable to other lands or structures in
the same zoning district. The building is unique in that
it is of multi levels  
    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.  
N/A
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  The building
was multi-level when he opened his Bakery.
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.  That cannot happen.
    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.  No, it would not.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-144 FOR:  (1)
THE CANOPY SIGN AS IT EXISTS; (2) THE TWO DIRECTIONAL
SIGNS AS PROPOSED WITH ONE TO BE ATTACHED TO THE FACE OF
THE BUILDING NEXT TO THE STAIRWELL AND THE OTHER AT THE
BOTTOM OF THE STAIRWELL DIRECTING THE CUSTOMERS TO THEIR
ENTRANCE; AND (3) FOR A SIDEWALK SIGN AND WE ASK THA THE
APPLICANT WORK WITH THE VILLAGE PLANNER TO WORK OUT FINAL
PLACEMENT OF THE REMOVABLE PANELS.  AS OTHER SIDEWALK
SIGNS IN TOWN HAVE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE AREAS, IT IS FINE
THAT THE REMOVABLE PANELS HAVE VARYING MESSAGES; THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE REGULATIONS FOR SIDEWALK SIGNS.  
MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, 118 S. Main Street –
Temporary Change of Use

    The church wishes to use a portion of the
downstairs to temporarily accommodate a consortium of
antique and craft dealers (Nest Feathers) from November 16
to December 28.  They would use the front door on the
south end of the South Main facade.  After that time it
would revert back to its current institutional use.  
Village Council approved the temporary change of use last
Wednesday, and final approval will be granted by GPC.  
    Ms. Lucier asked whether it would have any signs,
and Mr. Parris thought they might need a sandwich board.  
Temporary signs under 6 sq.ft. are allowed.  Temporary
contractor signs should also be approved by GPC.  Mr.
Parris’s objection is that they did not get their sign
application in at this time.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-145.  MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  

Ned Roberts, 348 E. Maple Street – Renovations

    Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant wishes to
rebuild an existing two-story rear addition and move the
existing shed.  He does not have a demolition permit yet.  
    Mr. Roberts explained that the new gable roof
replacing the shed roof will tie in to the existing roof.  
New siding will be added to the structure.  The shed was
built without permit and is partially in the ROW of South
Granger Street.  Mr. Roberts has agreed to move the
storage shed to meet the 10’ setback requirement.  He
wants to open up the front of the house and put in a
foundation and rebuild the walls. He will use the dirt
from the excavation to level the new shed area.  
    He explained window and door details with corner
detail and wrap trim on windows for GPC members.  The
siding will be cream-colored vinyl siding.    The shingles
will be three-panel shingles to match the porch.
     Mr. Burriss asked whether the shed could be
painted to match the siding, and Mr. Roberts said
eventually he wants to get rid of the shed and build a
garage, but in the meantime he could paint it to match.  
    Ms. Lucier noted that with all the projects he has
brought to GPC for other applicants, it’s nice for him to
have one of his own.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-146 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  1) THAT THE APPROVAL IS FOR THE
DEMOLITION AND ADDITION AS THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED IT;
2) THAT THE ADDITION INCLUDING THE MAIN HOUSE WILL BE
SIDED WITH A VINYL CREAM COLOR SIDING; 3) THAT THERE WILL
BE CORNERBOARD, WINDOW AND DOOR SURROUND DETAILS; 4) THAT
THE ENTIRE ROOF WILL BE SHINGLED TO MATCH THE FRONT PORCH;
5) THAT THE SHED WILL BE MOVED TO THE AGREED UPON LOCATION
AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE UNTIL THE END OF JANUARY 2003
TO DO THE RELOCATION OF THE SHED; AND 6) THAT THE
APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO PAINT THE SHED IN A COMPLIMENTARY
COLOR TO THE HOUSE OR TO STAIN IT.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Helmut & Evelyne Poelzing, 126 West Elm Street –
Modification

    Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants wish to
apply for a modification to delete the previously approved
side garage and extend existing driveway in gravel
straight back to the carriage house and install a one-car
garage door on it.  The woodpile and chicken wire fence
will be eliminated.  The overhead garage door would start
at the window and there would be a small turnaround.  They
would like to put in a low picket fence around the
turnaround and plant flowers around.  Also the applicant
wants to enclose the existing sunroom on the rear of the
house.
    Mr. Parris asked whether the proposed garage door
could blend in with the historic carriage house, and when
Mr. Burriss asked whether the entrance could be on the
side, the answer was No. He was very concerned about
adding a new door to a historic carriage house.  It needs
to be done sensitively.  Ned Roberts is not sure whether
applicants would paint the weathered carriage house, but
he thought the door could be sectioned and arched.  Mr.
Burriss wants to see more detail on windows and wants them
to put on batten strips on the garage door so it would not
show.  He would like to see a window in the garage door.  
He wondered about the appropriateness of a new fence
abutting the rustic garage   
    Mr. Salvage thought we should set aside the
proposed garage and deal with the rest of the
application.    
    They also wish to convert the sunroom and make a
four-season living space there. The footprint and roof
will not change but it will be enclosed by windows.
    Ned Roberts, builder, explained that the porch has
footers and insulation and they want this area for living
space.  The siding will match the house.   Mr. Roberts
explained the details of the double-hung windows with
mullions.  The front door is single French door.  They
will use the existing antique door.  All windows are 6
over 6.  

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO FIND MODIFICATIONS TO APPLICATION #01-
028 TO THE HOUSE ARE MINOR MODIFICATIONS.  MS. LUCIER
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #01-028M2 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  1) THAT THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE
DONE ON THE CARRIAGE HOUSE AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED FENCE
BE SUBMITTED TO THE PC IN A SEPARATE APPLICATION AS THEY
WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION; 2) THAT FOR THE
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE SUNROOM, ALL WINDOWS WILL
HAVE A 6 OVER 6 GRILL PATTERN AND THE DOORS WILL BE 15-
LIGHT DOORS, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT
ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOUSE; AND 3) THAT THE APPLICANT WILL
BE ADDING AN ANTIQUE FRENCH DOUBLE-DOOR TO THE WEST
ELEVATION.  THAT DOOR IS NOT SHOWN ON THE APPLICATION.

Finding of Fact:

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A, B, C, D, AND E
UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS, AND WE
FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING
CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF NOVEMBER
6.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Closing Comments:    Mr. Dorman said when people build
things they do not have a permit for or modify what they
were given permission for, we do have authority to cite
them and call them into Mayor’s Court, where it would be
determined if a fine was appropriate.  They of course
would have to come before GPC as well. He will change the
application form to make clear such consequences for
varying a permit.  He would like to put something in the
paper to explain what they will be doing.  There already
is a disclaimer statement, and he will add to it and put
it in the approval letter.  
Joe Hickman said we try to be fair.  Seth goes out and
spends time working for these things.  It’s challenging
for us because contractors show up and can only work at a
certain time.  He wants to hear how GPC feels about this
matter.  We do need to advertise that enforcement will
take place.
MR. Salvage said that change is necessary sometimes.  
After the fact items can be handled administratively as
long as they do not violate the code.  There are some
times when people want to make changes after construction
starts, as long as it does not violate code.  But we have
to be careful about setting precedents.
Mr. Parris said it’s not something to require basic
approval.  Normally the addition of a window is not a
great change unless it is a historic building.
    Mr. Dorman generally just drives by instead of
measuring things as long as they look OK.    
    If there are monetary consequences for violating
code, it should put a stop to it.  Mr. Salvage said the
application must say, “I understand that I will be cited
and directed to Mayor’s Court for modifications.”  Ms.
Lucier thought this issue would have the same effect as a
traffic citation.
    Mr. Burriss had three comments:  (1) Does
something need to go to Mayor’s Court with comment from us
about it’s being widely out of acceptance?  It could come
from the Planner, but there should be some indication of
the degree of violation.  Mr. Salvage thought Mr. Dorman
could present it at Mayor’s Court.
    (2) When you buy property in German Village, you
are given a set of guidelines saying you need approval and
this is what you should do.  Could a set be given by
realtors to buyers?  Mr. Salvage said ordinarily they do
get a statement like that where there are recorded
restrictions. Can such restrictions on record for the
historic district be given to all buyers?  Mr. Dorman said
he was working with Village Council for businesses to tell
them who to go to for what, and we could do that here.
    (3) We need to do a little bit of PR work.  “This
is done to preserve the wonderful village we have.”  It’s
a privilege to live here.  He does not think some people
are aware of inconsistency.  In their eyes it may be
improvement, but we have to be careful to preserve what is
so special.  When we deal with issues in noncompliance,
the goal is preserving what we have.   We must deal with
this positively, not punitively.  Mr. Salvage wants to put
this into the zoning code with possibly a 90-day grace
period.
    Mr. Hickman wants to run this by the Law Director
and also Village Council. Mr. Main will take it to V.C.
    Mr. Main thought a lot of people do not understand
the code and are quick to criticize what we do.

Adjournment: 9:35 p.m.
Next Meetings:   November 25 and December 9

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 10/28/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 28, 2002
 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main,
Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl
Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: None
Citizens Present:   Sharon Sellitto, Jonathan Glance
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of October 15, 2002:  Page 3, following “THE
SIGN; “Mr. Burriss reminded him that we like the light….”

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS MODIFIED. MS.
LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Phillip Markwood Architects, 102 East Broadway – Temporary
Contractor’s Sign

    Mr. Dorman said the application is for a temporary
sign for the duration of the east addition construction of
the church.  The Plexiglas sign would be a 10 1/2' sq.ft.
white sign with black letters and graphics, 5’ above grade
and located on the fence.  Mr. Dorman felt they would not
need any variances.  
    Mr. Parris questioned (in 1189.01 of the sign
code) whether only one sign is allowed per contractors or
one sign per site.  Mr. Dorman said that although we try
to get all contractors onto one sign, he did not think the
other sign would be of issue. Technically, he thought Mr.
Parris was correct and if the GPC wants to approve the
sign, a variance would be necessary.  
    Jonathan Glance said the contractor put up a sign
and the architect was not consulted on it. They asked
Miles Waggoner if they would put up a single sign next to
the contractor sign, but they were not interested, so that
was out of the church’s hands.
    Mr. Salvage said we forced the school district to
use one sign and the Presbyterian Church to use one sign.  
He would have a hard time agreeing to a second sign.  
    Mr. Burriss noted there is a lot of blank space on
the approved sign and he thinks they should be combined.  
The architect sign could be placed within that area
nicely.  If Kokosing could move their logo up or over in a
new sign, there would be plenty of room for the
architect’s sign.  Mr. Parris asked what we could do to
facilitate conversation between the parties. Mr. Glance
thought their Plexiglas sign could be added to the other
sign.      
    Mr. Parris asked if Mr. Dorman could talk to the
interested parties at the church.  
    Mr. Burriss wondered whether each new contractor
will want his name on a sign, but Mr. Glance said only
Corna Kokosing will be on the sign and not the
subcontractors.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-139 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  1) THAT THE APPLICANT’S SIGN WILL
BE INCORPORATED INTO THE EXISTING GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S
SIGN OR A TOTALLY NEW SIGN, THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF
WHICH WILL NOT INCREASE; AND 2) THAT ALL THE INTERESTED
PARTIES WILL GET FINAL APPROVAL OF THE GRAPHICS AND LAYOUT
FROM THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  THE PLANNING COMMISSION URGES
ALL THREE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS TO BE COOPERATIVE IN
THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS AND CONFORMING TO OUR SIGN CODE.  
MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street – Fence
Modification

Mr. Dorman said this is the second modification to a fence
approved in 2000. The first modification was approved in
June last year to modify the approval to put up a 35’x79’
fence enclosure.  The fence was different from the one
originally approved.  It went up with bigger dimensions
than what we approved.  Mr. Dorman asked her to come back
for approval for what was actually put up in the yard.  
Ms. Sellitto said she and the contractor had discussed
this, but then when she returned from out of town, he had
gone the additional distance with the posts and she
proceeded to attach the pickets without a modification.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THIS IS A MINOR MODIFICATION.  
MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE A MINOR MODIFICATION TO
APPLICATION #00-088 AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A UNDER NEW
BUSINESS (Markwood) AND ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS
(Sellitto), AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT
SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE
PLANNER’S MEMO OF OCTOBER 25.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Closing Comments:  

Ms. Lucier:  Tonight’s meeting reminded me of an issue we
have talked about before, because it happens so often, and
that is people go ahead and do whatever and then come back
to us for an approval after the fact.  I wonder if we
could propose something to the Council or if it’s even
necessary to do it that way; that there be some penalty
for those who do this.

Mr. Parris:  It puts us in a position; I didn’t say much
because it’s like what am I supposed to do, it’s already
built; what am I going to do, tell them to take it down?

Mr. Dorman:  If something comes to you after it’s built
you have to analyze it based on the code.  If you don’t
find it meets the standards of the code, we absolutely
have the authority to tell them to take it down.

Mr. Parris:  I think the reason that so many of these are
coming to us is because someone is actually going out
there now and looking at what’s being built; however this
is frustrating for us because its already built.

Mr. Dorman:  Those who do this are violating the zoning
code by violating their permit, so I could cite them.

Ms. Lucier:  I would feel good if you did that.

Mr. Salvage:  If you cite them what does that do?

Mr. Dorman:  It would send them to Mayor’s Court, where
they would go in front of the Mayor or Magistrate and
likely be fined.

Mr. Salvage:  That’s a good idea, but I would like to put
something on the application that states that applicants
who modify approved plans without proper approvals will be
issued a citation.  I would ask that Seth draft something
and also run it by the Law Director as soon as possible.

Adjournment: 7:55 p.m.
Next Meetings:   November 13 and November 25

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 10/15/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 15, 2002
 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Mark Parris (Vice Chair),
Richard Salvage (Chair)
Members Absent: Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Nick & Melanie Schott, Jerry Martin,
Willis Troy, Tom Fuller, Carolyn Carter, Gill Miller, Jeff
McInturf, Leon Habegger, Ned Roberts, Barb Hammond, Jim
Siegel, Paul Swenson  
Citizens’ Comments:  None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of September 9 and September 23, 2002:  Sept. 9,
Page 3, Line 5, change “pond” to lot.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 9TH MINUTES AS
CORRECTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 23RD MINUTES AS
PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

New Day Spa, 1287 Cherry Valley Road – Sign Relocation/
Modification

    Mr. Dorman said the application is to relocate the
existing 16 sq.ft. free-standing sign at the edge of the
pavement to a north/south orientation, 24’ from the
pavement.  The same sign will be used but the opposite
side will also have text and graphics to match the
existing side.
    Carolyn Carter said people cannot find their
business and reorienting it will make the business easier
to find. It will be externally lit on both sides and will
be landscaped.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-132 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Nick & Melanie Schott, 660 West Broadway – Fence in TCOD

Mr. Dorman said half of the proposed fence is in the TCOD
and the exact property line was uncertain. The 6’ tall
wooden fence would have beveled post caps and pickets
would be dog-eared with no spaces between them.  
Mr. Schott said he has talked with neighbor Mr. Patterson
and they will meet and review the line.  There had been a
fence survey done earlier.  There are six trees with big
root systems, and the applicant wanted to put the fence
where it will go best.  The property line is 1’ to the
right of the driveway. He explained on the drawing exactly
where the fence would go, starting at the second tree and
running back 80’ but will not return to the house. The
fence is for privacy and safety for the children.
Mr. Burriss noted the bottom of the fence is 6” from the
ground and he wondered whether that was enough room for
lawnmowers, etc.  The applicant may raise it if he wishes.
Mr. Salvage suggested the applicant put some stakes in the
ground and invite the Village Planner to view and accept
the location.  

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-135 WITH THE
CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT WILL AGREE UPON THE EXACT
LOCATION OF THE FENCE WITH THE NEIGHBOR AND REVIEW IT WITH
THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR FINAL APPORVAL.  MR. BURRISS
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Village Brewing Company, 128 East Broadway – Lot Split

Mr. Dorman said the lot split requested is for a portion
of east and west neighbors’ lots to accommodate the
recently approved kitchen addition.  Neighbors have
submitted letters of agreement with the split and it meets
applicable code requirements.
    Jerry Martin said the surveyor would like to see
this approved and the footers set before approving legal
description because he is afraid that if it is a foot
against the neighbor’s property, there may be trouble.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-061 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Gill Miller, 213 North Granger Street – Fireplace

    Mr. Dorman said the applicant wishes to add a 6.94
sq.ft. wood lap siding fireplace/chimney at the rear of
the property.  The protrusion into the yard would be 1.8 x
4.2’.
    Ned Roberts added construction details for the box
chimney.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-136 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road –
Site Plan Modification

    Mr. Dorman said this modification to the
previously submitted plan is in order to widen the
entrance to increase safety.  They are requesting 4 light
fixtures, including one to light the entrance sign.
    Neighbor Willis Troy had a concern with lighting
escaping onto his property, and Mr. Salvage explained our
lighting requirements and said the lights will not bleed
out.   Willis Troy was also concerned about the kids
playing so close to his yard and “missiles” flying into
his yard.  With the driveway expansion and lessening of
the area, he does not want kids running into his expensive
shrubs.  Leon Habegger from the school said they will work
together to do everything they can to ease the situation.
    Paul Swenson asked about the length of time the
lights would be on and was told until 11 p.m.  Mr. Parris
requested that the supplier of lights provides the best
product available and sets them up properly so they do
what they are supposed to do.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION REQUESTED BY
APPLICATION #02-119, AS MODIFIED BY A PREVIOUS MOTION THAT
TH E APPLICATION WILL NOT ENCOMPASS ANY AREA OUTSIDE OF
THE FRONT PARKING AREA.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road –
Freestanding Sign
    
    The church wishes to install a new 32 sq.ft.
externally lit sign at the front entrance, mounted in
stone with three lines of changeable copy.  Variances are
required for (1) 4 colors vs. 3 allowed in code,  (2)
changeable copy, which is not allowed in code, and (3)
size of sign.
    Jeff McInturf showed the modified changeable copy
sign with reduced size (from 40 to 32 sq.ft.), 6’ high,
with 4 colors, mounted in red brick.  The logo will be
eliminated and the red lettering will be black.   He said
the lights would be on all night.  The sign would be 40’
from the road, and the frontage is about 450’.  Caps atop
the wall are flat.  They would no longer need their
sidewalk signs.   

THE SIGN:    Mr. Burriss reminded him that we like the
light source to be landscaped so that the fixture cannot
be seen
Mr. Salvage believes the sign is appropriate for the
intended use because: (1) it’s a dual-use facility and (2)
the size of the facility is big and the code is really
designed for smaller places.  He wondered whether we could
look at this as just a same size replacement where
variances were previously granted.  He is more comfortable
saying the size has been previously granted, Mr. Dorman
was more comfortable with a new variance because there is
a new code in place and it’s a new sign.  Members
discussed other large signs and other church signs.  
Members wanted a permanent panel with the name of the
school in 6” letters.  The 32 sq.ft. sign will be 4
colors, black, white, green, and beige.  The logo is
gone.  
THE CHANGEABLE COPY:  Jeff McInturf said that by looking
at the total size of the sign, this is proportionate to
other changeable signs.  He does not think the church will
reduce the size of the changeable copy area.  Mr. Burriss
said the primary concern of the sign was to inform people
where the school and church are located; therefore why
wouldn’t it make more sense to have the words larger and
the changeable copy small?  Mr. McInturf said they
removed “Home of” to make it larger.  Mr. Salvage
suggested putting the names of the school at the top of
the changeable copy.  He would prefer the red lettering
bigger and the changeable copy smaller.  Mr. McInturf is
willing to go to 5” letters.  Mr. Burriss wanted them to
find a more slender font for the changeable copy.  Mr.
Salvage suggested that Mr. Dorman and Mr. Burriss make
final decision on lettering choice.  There will be 3 lines
of changeable copy.  

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES FOR THIS
PROPOSAL FROM THE MAXIMUM SIZE, NUMBER OF COLORS AND NO
CHANGEABLE COPY STANDARDS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:  (1)
THIS IS A LARGE FACILITY OF APPROXIMATELY 30,000 SQUARE
FEET ON A LARGE PROPERTY UNUSUALLY ZONED; (2) THERE ARE
TWO USES FOR THIS FACILITY BOTH A CHURCH AND K-12 SCHOOL
(WITH A 200+ STUDENT ENROLLMENT; AND (3) THERE ARE OTHER
INSTITUTIONS THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE BOTH CHURCHES AND
SCHOOLS THAT HAVE SIGNS OF SIMILAR OR LARGER SIZES, HAVE
CHANGEABLE COPY AND SOME ARE EVEN INTERNALLY LIT.  MR.
BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-120 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THAT THE MONUMENT HOLDING THE
SIGN IS TO BE RED BRICK WITH TINTED MORTAR TO MATCH THE
BUILDING; (2) THAT VEGETATION BE PLANTED AROUND THE ENTIRE
SIGN; (3) THAT THE APPLICANT CONSULT MR. BURRISS AND THE
VILLAGE PLANNER FOR FINAL APPORVAL OF THE FOLLOWING: (A)
THE SEMI-PERMANENT PANEL TO HIGHLIGHT THE GRANVILLE
CHRISTIAN ACADEMY AND SONSHINE SCHOOL, AND (B) THE COLOR,
FONT AND SIZE OF THE CHANGEABLE COPY; AND (4) THAT THE
CROSS LOGO BE REMOVED FROM THE DESIGN.  MR. BURRISS
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  

Barb Hammond, 123 East Broadway – Awning over Rear Door

Mr. Dorman introduced the application to modify the
existing sign to permit a black awning with copper
lettering, over the rear door to match the one in the
front.  Only one awning is allowed.  There can be two
awnings but not two signs.
Ms. Hammond said it’s a shed type awning to protect people
from the rain at the door with the little window.  The
name is on the 6” drop and has the same information as the
one in the front.
    
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR THE SECOND
CANOPY SIGN FOR THE REASON THAT INCORPORATING THE SIGN ON
THE CANOPY WOULD BE BETTER AND MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN A
SEPARATE SIGN OVER OR AROUND THE DOOR WHICH WOULD BE
ALLOWED AND BECAUSE IT PROVIDES FOR A CONSISTENCY OF THE
PRESENTATION OF GRAPHICS WHICH HAS BEEN ONE OF OUR GOALS,
AND FURTHERMORE GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AFFECT THE
HELATH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PERSONS LIVING AND
WORKING IN THE AREA.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-124M WITH THE
STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT MATCHES THE GRAPHICS ON THE
FRONT CANOPY FOR THIS PROPOSED CANOPY SIGN.  MR. BURRISS
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Village of Granville – Light Fixtures at Opera House Park

    Jim Siegel from the Tree and Landscape Commission
is requesting some lighting for the park. He explained the
walkway system and said it is very dark and they propose
placing lamp posts in three spots.  Any light is blocked
by the trees.  He showed the proposed 75-watt styles with
outlets and said others may tap into the electric unit for
special occasions.
    Mr. Burriss encouraged him to match the lights on
Broadway and Mr. Siegel said they do not want a street
lamp, they want a park light  with 7 ½’ post and 1 ½’ for
the light.
    Mr. Burriss would like to explore the opportunity
to go with lights in the same family that are downtown.  
Having an outlet is great, but who is to pay for it and
who would own the meter?   He suggested locking the
outlets.  Mr. Siegel said the Tree and Landscape
Commission would pay for the fixtures if the Village would
pay for the lighting.  The light will not flood out.
    Mr. Salvage does not want them to look at the
dollars but wants attractive lights.

Finding of Fact:

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A,B,C, AND D
UNDER NEW BUSINESS (New Day, Schott, Brews, Miller) AND
ITEMS A,B, AND C UNDER OLD BUSINESS Spring Hills,
Hammond), AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT
SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE
PLANNER’S MEMO OF OCTOBER 11.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  9:35 p.m.
Next Meetings:   October 28 and November 12

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen