Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 12/22/03

 GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 22, 2003
 Minutes

Members Present:  Jackie O’Keefe, Mark Parris (Vice
Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair)
Members Absent:   Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier
Citizens Present:  Bill Troy, Jenny Morehead, Tom Burkett,
Tommy Burkett, Judith Apater, Jeff McInturf, Steve West,
Dana West, Greg Ross, Roger Kessler
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of November 24, 2003:
MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

TLR & Associates, 127 South Prospect Street, Sign

The application was withdrawn at request of applicant.

Park National Bank, 119 East Broadway – Signs

    Mr. Strayer said the applicant is seeking 4
signs:  (1) free-standing sign in parking lot; (2) wall
sign at top of bank façade; (3) window signs on either
side of front door; and (4) projecting sign for clock.
    Roger Kessler explained they wish to replace sizes
on existing signs except the one in the rear, which will
be 2’x2’.  He said the building sign will have aluminum
letters 1” off the wall.  The clock sign (4) is to be
black with blue numerals with gold band trademark.  The
same color will be on all signs.  Mr. Parris thinks the
wall sign would look better in black than in blue, but Mr.
Kessler said it’s their trademark color.
    Mr. Salvage thought the upgrades were
appropriate.  

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-170 AS PRESENTED.  MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Baptist Church, 115 East Broadway – remodeling and paving


    Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to do a
general remodeling and paving.  They will match existing
stone façade and widen the stairway for better handicapped
access and install a chair lift.  They wish approval for
refacing the corner of the Christian Ed building with
matching stone and paving for plaza between church and
education center.
Tom Burkett explained the plans for widening the exterior
stairway to the church to 6’.    Repair of building and
improving the plaza area will tie the two buildings
together visually.  A 7’ wall along driveway will be
covered with the same material.  Now it’s cement block
painted white.  Mr. Burkett showed a sample of the locally
made proposed stone, which will match the existing
building well.  The texture is very much the same.    The
current asphalt driveway will be replaced with pavers or
asphalt, but Mr. Parris stated that one or the other must
be chosen.    Mr. Strayer said flat surfaces are not
something that GPC approves, but plazas would be, so they
have an option with the driveway and GPC just approves the
plaza.  Mr. Burkett said it will depend on whether they
have enough money for pavers, but there will definitely be
asphalt.  They are not going to change the configuration
of the driveway.  
Judy Apater, architect, explained the difference between
doorway measurement.  The steps will be removed and
replaced with safer steps.
    Mr. Salvage asked about the planting area and
small tree, and Tom Burkett wants a planting area, to be
moved closer to the building.  The tree is in the
planting.  The request will go to the Tree and Landscape
Commission.  

    MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-167 AND GIVE THE
APPLICANT THE OPTION OF SURFACING THE DRIVEWAY WITH
ASPHALT AS IS THERE NOW OR PAVERS GOING INTO THE DRIVEWAY
AREA.  A DRAWING IS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE VILLAGE
PLANNER.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Baptist Church, 115 East Broadway – lighting

    The applicant also wishes to install 4 150-watt
spotlights to light the lower portion of bell tower
    Tom Burkett said the fixtures will be behind the
little peaks at the base of the tower in front of the
single window.  They will be operated on a timer and
photoelectric eye to light them only at night.  Their
lighting consultant helped with set-up design.  Mr. Riffle
asked whether this would interfere with airplane traffic,
and Mr. Burkett reminded the group that the Chapel has
more light than this one.
    Mr. Parris would like the lighting consultant to
provide a schematic to show details of intensities and
fixtures in a lighting plan to give us a graphic
representation of what we will see visually and show it to
the Village Planner

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-168 WITH THE PROVISION THAT
THE VILLAGE PLANNER WILL GET A LIGHTING SCHEMATIC AND SHOW
WHERE LIGHTS WILL BE LOCATED.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  

Lisa Morrisette, 214 North Pearl Street - Fence

    Since members would like to see a plot of the lot
with fence line and as the applicant is on vacation,

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION 03-171 PENDING
FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT.  MR. RIFFLE
SECONDED, AND  MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Brian Corbett, 117 South Prospect Street – change of use

The applicant proposes to make half of the first floor and
basement and turn it into a baked goods and retail store.  
Parking requirements are uncertain.  The applicant is not
here.  

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO TABLE 03-172 UNTIL APPLICANT CAN BE
PRESENT.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Work Session:

Ross Granville Market

    Mr. West updated the group of the entranceway to
the old IGA and showed two different plans for front
façade behind the two trees ending the allee.  A jumbo-
sized brick will be used.  The roof is higher in the front
than in the back so mechanicals will not show from the
front.  They want to accentuate the center between the two
openings.  He said the building will be squared off and
the area in front between the doors protrudes 12’
outward.  A cathedral ceiling will be at inside front.  
They contemplated going with a partial gable in the back.  
Members were not too concerned about the appearance at the
rear.
    Mr. Salvage thinks the drawing looks good.   He
likes the way the roof ties in with the vestibule.
    Mr. Parris noted the only issue we had last time
focused on the center entryway.  
    Members liked both plans but slightly preferred
Plan B with the little green point at the center front.

Spring Hills Baptist Church

    Jeff McInturf from the planning committee said
they are going to take the next step in their planning.  
In this section they will add, fill in, with an L-shaped
structure.  They are requesting a stairway outside the
plan originally approved.  Originally they wanted a
courtyard, but they will fill that in to give them more
room  inside.  It will be a plain closed stairwell.  
    Mr. Salvage has no problems with the plan.
    Mr. Paris stated that as long as they match
construction materials, we don’t have a problem The
stairwell is in the back so should not be a concern.  

Comprehensive Plan Review

    GPC members preferred to wait until the fill
membership could be present to discuss the review. Mr.
Strayer asked members to submit thoughts to him for the
next packet.

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR ITEMS B,C, AND D UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE
FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE
ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF
DECEMBER 19, 2003.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  8:20 p.m.
Next Meetings:   January 12 and 26

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 11/10/03

 GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 10, 2003
 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Melissa
Hartfield, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle,  Richard
Salvage (Chair)
Members Absent:   none
Citizens Present:  Chuck Whitman
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Citizens¡¦ Comments:  None
The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of October 27, 2003:
On page 2, change end of 3d paragraph to ¡§¡Kthe HER sign to
make it free-standing, it could be on the same bracket and
eliminate the need for variance for two projecting signs¡K.¡¨
MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MS.
LUCIER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Chuck Whitman, 138 East Broadway - Awning
Mr. Strayer stated that the applicants wish to renovate
the awning over Whit¡¦s storefront and propose to replace
the green with gray and red.  The material will be similar
to the one for Hare Hollow.
The applicant said the color is similar to the color of
the building (taffy).  They are raising the awning up
about one foot.
   
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-153 AS SUBMITTED.     MR.
BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Chuck Whitman, 138 East Broadway - Signs
    Mr. Strayer said the applicant is seeking approval
for three signs:  (1) an etched vinyl window sign on the
door, which will be frosted on the glass; consensus agreed
that an ice cream cone is not a commercial message; (2) a
neon ¡§Open¡¨ sign with a ice cream cone on the window. The
sign is to be turned on only when the business is open.   
Neon signs are permitted as long as no commercial logo or
message is displayed. (3) A wall sign over the awning in a
polished brass frame.  With the four colors requested,
this sign would require a variance.  The background color
is supposed to match the color of the building.  The
applicant agreed to paint the little ice cream cone blue
to avoid the variance.  
    Ms. Lucier finds the wall sign to be very busy
with all those words, but Mr. Whit said that is his
official logo.  Consensus agreed this was OK.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-154 WITH THE CONDITION THAT
THE BLACK COLOR ON THE WALL SIGN ON THE FACE OF THE
BUILDING BE CHANGED TO BLUE ALREADY PROPOSED FOR THE
SIGN.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR ITEMS A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND
THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING
CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER¡¦S MEMO OF OCTOBER
24, 2003.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:    Comprehensive Plan

    Village Council has voted to table their portion
of the Plan until after the first of the year so the new
Council can get a chance to review it, so we have more
time to work on it.

    Mr. Parris is confused as to what our role is and
what we are to be looking for in the document.  Is it for
language?  For content?  For our opinions?  To change
policy?  It would be hard to achieve a consensus in our
group. The group putting the Plan together worked hard and
collected data from citizens, and he does not feel we can
change the language.   Mr. Salvage noted there are things
in this section that he does not think fit here.  The
problem is it¡¦s already two years old, and there are
things no longer current.

    Ms. Hartman thought GPC should look for anything
that does not seem to be working¡Xmore of a refinement than
a change.  Look at things you have addressed in the past
or things missing here.

    Mr. Burris said we are only sending our
recommendations.   He thought we should start tonight,
since we will need all the time available.  

    Mr. Salvage preferred to wait until the new
Council is installed.  

    Mr. Strayer said a comprehensive plan is only as
good updated as it is.  The best course of action is for
GPC to look at goals, policies, and plans of the new
revision and see if they are still applicable.  It is
broken up into three sections and how they apply to the
Village.  Lastly comes the implementation and how to get
goals and policies into the zoning code.  He thought Keith
Myers could come in and give us answers to our questions.  
A comprehensive plan is long term and an ordinance is
short term.  

Some issues brought up were:
„«    Open space requirements and requirements per acre
„«    Where did this information come from:
„«    What¡¦s the rationale behind the numbers?
„«    Updated figures are needed
„«    Clarify ¡§built-out¡¨ sections

Consensus agreed to postpone this discussion.

Mr. Salvage requested the Village Planner to postpone any
applications for November 22, if possible.

Adjournment:  8:23 p.m.
Next Meetings:   November 24 (only if something comes up)
and December 8

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 10/14/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 14, 2003
Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main,
Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle
Members Absent: Richard Salvage (Chair)
Citizens Present:  Pam Powell, Kevin Foster, Craig Fottor,
Drew McFarland, Greg Ross, Steve West, Dana West
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of September 22, 2003:
On the last paragraph, correct spelling of Mr. Riffle’s
name.
MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MS.
LUCIER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Kevin Foster, 351 North Granger Street - Addition
    Mr. Strayer stated that this is for a residence
addition, which would replace the front porch, currently
in poor condition.  The new porch will have 4 posts on
east and west, and the proposed materials are here before
you.  The square footage will be increased from 1200 to
2200.
Mr. Foster added that it will be longer and a few feet
wider than the present structure.  
Ms. Lucier asked how similar the new windows would be to
the existing ones and was told that they are more rounded
on the porch.  The plan is to use double-hung windows
throughout for economic reasons.  Windows will be
consistent.  They are replacing gutter and downspouts.  
The siding will be 6” clapboard.  The antenna will be
removed.  Mr. Burris asked about the different heights of
the windows and Mr. Foster said they are unaligned because
of the low ceilings.  The new part will have a full second
floor.
Mr. Main asked about the location of detached garage and
driveway and was told they are not sure yet.  Mr. Foster
would like to have the access from Spellman Street, but
there are two trees he is reluctant to remove.  
Windows were discussed further and it was suggested to
repeat the arched windows in the front.  Mr. Burris
thought it was OK to have different windows in the front
and it would be a dishonor to completely remove the arched
windows.   
Mr. Foster described the posts on the porch and explained
the window trim, which is heavier than what is there now.  
He wasn’t sure he could buy more, but Mr. Riffle and Mr.
Parris told him where it could be found.

MS LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE 03-139 WITH THE STIPULATIONS
THAT (1) FOUR FIRST FLOOR WINDOWS ON NORTH AND EAST SIDES
OR ORIGINAL PART OF THE HOUSE WILL BE CLOSE TO WHAT IS
PLANNED; (2) FINAL PLANS FOR LENTEL DETAILS ARE TO BE
SHOWN TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Prudential Office, 142 East Broadway – sidewalk sign
    Mr. Strayer said the applicant did not provide
detail of the sign, but it will be exactly like the one at
Reader’s Garden. The applicant is not here tonight to
answer questions so members chose to table it.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO TABLE 03-142 UNTIL THE APPLICANT CAN
BE PRESENT AND CAN SHOW THE PROPOSED SIGN.  MR. BURRISS
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

W.W. Bancroft, 230 East Broadway – Sign
    Mr. Strayer said the application is for a
projecting sign with two tags off the front porch, using
and repainting the former Crown and Cushion sign.  The
tags are considered part of the projecting sign, and with
the tags, it is still within the maximum 10 square feet.
    
    Drew McFarland added that they can make the sign
either straight or tapered.  Mr. Burriss noted that the
Crown and Cushion sign had a nice border, and he would
like to see this added. The sign would feel more finished
with a border.  Pam Powell said that could be done, in
either red or black.  Mr. Strayer will review final sign
design.
    Ms. Lucier preferred the same font for all signs
for the building.
    
MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-144 WITH THE STIPULATION
THAT (1) IT HAVE A BORDER AND THAT (2) APPLICANT WILL RUN
FINAL DESIGN BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MS. LUCIER SECONDED,
AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Drew McFarland, 230 East Broadway – Sign
    The application is for a second projecting sign on
the same building as the previous application.  Only one
projecting sign is allowed on a building, and the sign is
too high to fall within the code, so two variances would
be required.  The actual sign formerly hung from the
building down the street where Drew McFarland had his law
office.  He said it will hang off the second floor bay
window over the porch roof and project 30”.  It’s two-
sided and heavy, so it cannot swing. He has used the
Kussmaul-designed sign since 1989 and is proposing this in
lieu of window lettering.
    Mr. Burris asked whether he could hang it inside
the bay window and Mr. McFarland said he would rather
not.  It would not be visible behind the blinds.  
    Mr. Parris noted we just approved the sign for
W.W. Bancroft, which is completely different in graphics
and style, but Mr. McFarland said it shouldn’t matter
because his is on the second floor.  
    Mr. Burris noted that we have tried to follow
guidelines of the Master Plan, and the second floor office
use is what was recommended for downtown.  Old photographs
show many businesses on the second floor.  He thought the
sign bracket should have some reference to the center bar
of the window, and also you need to consider how it will
look from inside.  Mr. McFarland was picturing it in the
lower part of the window so as not to block the view.
    Mr. Riffle does not like the two signs being so
different.   Mr. McFarland thought changing the Crown and
Cushion sign would be cost prohibitive, and he already has
a sign he likes.  It was approved by GPC for a block
away.  Mr. Burris suggested adapting the Crown and Cushion
sign to appear more similar to the McFarland sign.  Fonts,
colors, and materials should be the same.  Changing it
would mean amending the previous application.
    Ms. Lucier is concerned about granting variances
for a second projecting sign with height deviation because
it opens up the possibility of others doing the same thing
up and down the street.  Guidelines should be followed.
    Mr. Parris referred to variances in 1147, and
according to the code we do not have to apply every one of
these criteria to the argument, but at least one.   The
problem is that a sign puts itself into a position of
needing a variance, but we need to give reasons.  Mr.
McFarland said they are not using up the other two signs
allowed.  He cannot really convert his sign to a wall
sign.  It’s a very sedate, heavy, weathered redwood sign.
    Mr. Paris said we have to be in a position where
someone is willing to propose a variance.  If no one will
sponsor it, there’s nowhere for it to go.  No member has a
problem with the actual sign, but no one would come
forward to support it.    Ms. Lucier finds nothing in the
criteria for the second projecting sign.   Mr. Burris
would rather do more research on other projecting signs in
the village.  He noted that the two signs are on different
planes.  This is somewhat similar to a projecting sign and
an awning sign on the same building.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TABLE 03-144.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED
AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:   Granville IGA

    Greg Ross introduced Steve West, Designer, and
said they want to square off the building and remodel the
entire interior with a small addition on the back.  
    Mr. Burriss noted that on the landscape and
parking plan we created a central allee for a different
configuration, which went into the building rather than a
blank wall.  He would prefer to see the allee as a central
feature with islands and trees uniting the lot and the
store in a happy celebration.  A building in a parking lot
needs a better dialog.
    Mr. West described the windows and colors.  There
will be a second floor office.  On the back side a trash
compactor will sit beside the cardboard compactor and
freezer.  Boxes and Bows wants space back there too, and
the applicant is willing to listen to GPC’s suggested
materials.
    Mr. Parris does not want the mechanicals to show
from the front, and Mr. Wesson said they will be hidden by
the roof.  
    Mr. Ross stated that the IGA name will have to
change because their supplier went bankrupt.  New logos
will be needed, and rather than replacing the awning with
the logo there presently, he would like to paint out the
name.  Later they will address a new sign package for the
area.
        
Finding of Fact:  MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR ITEMS A AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND
THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING
CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF OCTOBER
10, 2003.  MS LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  9:30 p.m.
Next Meetings:    October 27 and November 10
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 9/22/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 22, 2003
 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Matt McGowan,
Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage
(Chair)
Members Absent: none
Citizens Present: Brian Newkirk, Steve Mershon, Ben &
Nadine Rader, Jerry Martin, Kathy Lowery, Rodger Kessler,
Neal & Sue Hartfield, Julio Valenzuela, Carol Whitt
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of September 8, 2003:
Page 1, 5th line up, change Mr. Parris to Mr. Salvage.
Page 2, Line 2, add representing Law Director after
Attorney Durham.
MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Ben Rader, 130 West Broadway - Fence
    The applicant wishes to add a fence in the front
yard to duplicate the existing wrought iron fence on the
little balcony over the door.  If he cannot duplicate the
circular piece, the fence design will be altered to
exclude them.  A gate will be added at center front.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-129 AS PRESENTED.  MR.
BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Carol Whitt, 139 West Maple - Windows
    Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to replace a
rear concrete block wall with glass blocks and door.  The
project will not be visible from the street.  
    Ms. Whitt described the project is detail, showing
where the blocks and windows will be.  There is a lot of
shrubbery in the area.  
    Mr. Burriss thought we reviewed this project last
year and thought the current  plans would be an
improvement over the metal windows.
MS. LUCIER MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF 03-123 AS PRESENTED. MR.
RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Neil Hartfield, 325 East Elm Street - Renovationss
    Mr. Strayer said the project will include roof and
window replacements, increasing pitch on front porch and
installing windows that match the current windows.  The
applicant wants to restore some historical details which
have disappeared through remodeling.  
    Mr. Hartfield described the project in detail and
GPC members asked for further clarification of some items,
such as location of window on the north second floor and
ventilation plans.  The 6over6 double-hung windows will
all match in style and size.  A new dormer will be added
to break up the massing and allow more light into the
bedrooms.  New board and batten siding will be added to
the third story gable ends.    The windows will be
appropriately trimmed, and a retaining wall or landscaping
will be added to control rainwater runoff.  A brick veneer
will be added below the drip board.  A glass block window
will be added in the east side for the bathroom.  
    Members discussed the pitch and materials of the
roof   Ms. Lucier asked about the aesthetics of front
façade where louvers are tacked on and thought a window
would improve appearance, and Mr. Hartfield said
originally there were two windows in the attic, but two
windows do not look right.  It will look better with board
and batten siding.
    Mr. Burriss would like to see consistency among
windows.  Some are 6over6 and some are 8over 8.  He asked
if there could be two dormers added, but Mr. Hartfield did
not think that would look as good. He thought the windows
would look better lined up.  He wanted to see more pitch
on gable or shed roof.  
    GPC had no problems with the porch roof.  Mr.
Hartfield wanted to think about 6over 6 instead of 8over 8
in the second floor and wanted to draw another sketch with
more pronounced peak and smaller size dormers, board and
batten on north side, trimming louvers, and a new window.  
He will also do a landscaping plan on the east to help
control water run-off.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-125 WITH THE CONDITION THAT
THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT DRAWINGS OF THE DORMER
MODIFICATIONS TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND MR. BURRISS AND
THEY WILL GIVE FINAL APPROVAL.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville School, 130 N. Granger Street – Sign
    Mr. Strayer said the requested sign is blue and
white, sand-blasted foam. The maximum size for a sign is 4
sq.ft, but this one is 12.5 sq.ft.    
    Ms. Lucier said the sign is too big, three times
what it should be and asked whether the sign is decorative
or informational.  Mr. Burriss said the School Board has
been very generous with the Sinnett House space and
wondered whether the Granville Fellowship would also be
requesting a sign.  Kathy Lowery, Superintendent, said
they have not approached her.  The sign is informational
and would be adjacent to the parking lot.   
    Rodger Kessler, Signmaker, thought if it were any
smaller, people could not read it.  Mr. Salvage said the
building comes right up against a commercial district, and
it is not in a residential area.  Mr. Parris said the
zoning in place was not designed for schools, and he would
be sensitive to what neighbors think of the sign.  Mr.
Riffle thought it would be more visible as a two-sided
sign.  Mr. Burriss would prefer that the sign be 6” lower
in the place as proposed.
    Mr. Parriss said we struggle with this issue
constantly, and he has mixed feelings, but if you look at
the appropriateness of the function and size, he would not
have a problem as long as the neighbors do not object.  We
have done this for other institutions.  
    Neighbor Steve Mershon believes the school needs
identification on the building.  The place they have
chosen is fine, but he would like it a little smaller.  We
wanted to make the area look more residential.  He thought
this an appropriate size if it is to be viewed from
Broadway and Granger. He would rather see it on Broadway,
but they are trying to direct people into the parking lot.
    Mr. Salvage said the sign location will eliminate
the problem of people not finding the parking lot.  He
thinks it should be parallel to Granger and should be
lower.
    Mr. Parris applied the criteria to the size
variance (1147.03):

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.   We deal; with this type of
circumstance more than we would like to.  
    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.
The sign is appropriate for the size of the activities in
the building.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  
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. I don’t think that granting on that basis would
confer any undue privilege to the applicant that this body
has not seen fit to consider in other applications.
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.  
The variance will in no manner affect health, safety, or
general welfare .

FOR THESE REASONS, I  PROPOSE GRANTING A VARIANCE TO 03-
127 FOR SIZE OF THE SIGN FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.  MR.
RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MS.
LUCIER VOTED NO.)

 MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 03-127 WITH THE
CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT AGREES TO DECREASE HEIGHT TO
1’ OFF THE GROUND INSTEAD OF 1 ½’.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED,
AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

W. W. Bancroft LLC, 230 East Broadway - Fence
    Mr. Strayer stated that the application is coming
from the screening required for the parking lot east side
approved at our last meeting.  The fence will be a 72”
three-board style.  The same fence on the north will be
installed on the east side.  It will not disturb the big
tree on site.
    Brian Newkirk said they have lowered the height of
the fence and it will match the other one.
MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-128 AS PRESENTED.  MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Julio Valenzuela, 410 North Granger Street - Addition
     Mr. Strayer said the applicant wants an addition
on the rear of the second floor.  The massing will be
affected, but since it’s on the second floor, it won’t be
very visible.  The materials will match original house.
    Mr. Valenzuela said we are coming over the first
8’ and allowing the master suite with 8’’ overhang.  
Shutters will be added.  The house has been added onto
several times, but he will be keeping the old part and
only working on the additions.
    Mr. Salvage asked why the window on the left side
will be right up above and the applicant said it’s to
bring additional lighting inside.
    Mr. Burris stated if he centered the window, it
would look better.  The inside area was discussed and it
was determined that there was good cause for putting the
window where it is.
    Ms. Lucier asked whether it is an extension of the
gable, and the applicant said on the south is was too low,
and we are going to match the gable.
     MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE 03-131 AS SUBMITTED.  
MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,C,D,E,F UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE
FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE
ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF
SEPTEMBER 19, 2003.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  9:00 p.m.
Next Meetings:    October 15 and 27
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 9/8/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 8, 2003

 Minutes

Members Present:, Matt McGowan, Mark Parris (Vice Chair),
Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair)
Members Absent: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier
Citizens Present: Drew McFarland, Judy Guenther, Barbara
Hammond, Pamela Powell, Cindy Farley, Sylvia Brombeck,
Nancy Graham, Kathleen Reagan, John & Georgia Denune,
Brian Newkirk, Mark Evans, Mary Mulligan, Jerry Martin,
Flo Hoffman, Charles & Lisa Whitman, Joe Durham  
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
The Chair welcomed Chris Strayer, new Village Planner

Minutes of August 25, 2003:
 MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Pamela Powel/HER Real Estate, 230 East Broadway- Change of
Use and Parking
    
    Mr. Strayer said the applicant is seeking a change
of use for first floor and basement from retail to a
professional office.  The application includes paving for
the lot, as 5 spaces require a paved lot.
The reason this application was tabled, he added, was
because of confusion with the issue of parking.  The total
required for the business and the 1st Federal is 5 spaces,
but with 5, you need a paved parking lot.  The applicants
have provided a new survey that lines out the lot, and
there is a shared contract.  There will be a shared
easement between the two properties. The lot fits 12 cars,
which puts it above the required number for two parcels.
The change of use is determined to meet all codes.  
    Keith Myers, neighbor, said the problem is there
is no outlet for storm water; it all goes back onto his
property.  He would have a serious concern about the paved
parking lot without dealing with the water management
system and an inspection by the Village Engineer.
    Mr. Salvage added that a letter from another
neighbor recommends that approval be conditional upon a
site drainage plan, and Mr. McFarland replied that Joe
Hickman has suggested such a plan.
    John Denune, neighbor, said he would have no
problem with the proposed parking because the more off-
street parking there is, the better.
    Mr. Salvage asked whether GPC could make a
determination to have the lot be not paved, and Attorney
Durham, sitting in for Law Director Crites said it would
have to be decided by BZBA.
    In 1159.03,e.3 Mr. McFarland noted that if a
change of use does not result in a greater parking
requirement, a BZBA review is not required.  So a variance
is not required; he would rather have it not be paved.
    Brian Newkirk said they would have to remove the
second tree, a 26” maple, in order to pave the lot and
make everything fit
Mr. Strayer said it’s because of the 1st Federal’s lease
that the project needs additional parking. This discussion
should center on paving.  The fence required will be
addressed in the next application.
Mr. Parris would like to see the tree stay, and as long as
we are agreeable that there is enough parking space, he
would rather see it remain gravel.
Mr. Salvage would like to go ahead and approve this
tentatively for gravel pending appeal to BZBA.  If the
applicants want to appeal to BZBA for variance to omit the
paving, he would be in favor, and Drew McFarland said they
would like to do this.  Mr. Myers said this would be
wise.  In general in the Village parking is limited and it
is good judgment to look at each individual case rather
than adhering strictly to the code.  Paving the area would
strain a water system already at its maximum.   Mr.
McFarland thought they could pave only the parking slots,
but that would not work very well.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-106 WITH THE FOLLOWING
STIPULATIONS:  (1) APPLICANT SHALL HAVE OPTION TO USE THE
PARKING LOT WITH GRAVEL NOW AND APPLY TO BZBA FOR VARIANCE
FOR THAT CONDITION; (2) FENCE TO BE INSTALLED ON EAST
PROPERTY LINE WILL BE 72”; (3) APPLICATION IS CONDITIONAL
UPON APPROVAL OF FENCE FOR NORTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES.  
MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. McFarland asked to amend the next application to have
the fence be 72”.

New Business:

Brian Newkirk, 226 East Broadway - Fence

    Mr. Strayer said a fence is required along east
side of parking lot described above.  Although this
ordinarily would have been part of the Powell application,
it was received too late for enclosure and to expedite the
situation, is offered separately.
    Mr. Denune thought the fence should be 6’ tall in
order to make the area safer, and Mr. Newkirk said the
size doesn’t matter as long as it satisfies the neighbors.
    Mr. Newkirk said the application is for new fence
connecting to and matching the existing fence.  A wrought
iron gate will be between the two properties for security
and privacy.  He will put a similar type fence across the
open area.  The code requires a fence around any parking
lots with more than 4 spaces.   He will bring to the
Village Planner a sample gate style.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-114 WITH CONDITIONS:  (1)
FENCE IS TO BE 72” HIGH; (2) FENCE TO MATCH EXISTING
FENCE; (3) APPLICANT TO PRESENT GATE PLANS TO VILLAGE
PLANNER. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Charles Whitman, 128 East Broadway – Change of Use

    Mr. Strayer said the application is to change the
use from retail to food/drug/beverages.  The applicant
wishes to move Whit’s Frozen Custard from North Prospect
Street to the spot where Hare Hollow was.  Parking is no
problem, as it is a lesser use.  Applicant will submit
application for awning later.  
    Quoting Fred Wolf, Mr. Salvage said that this
would make 6 food establishments.
    Barbara Hammond is concerned about having another
restaurant rather than a retail shop, since retail is what
draws people to Granville as a destination spot.
    Brian Newkirk said having a restaurant with people
coming and going is better than an empty shop awaiting
tenants.
    Drew McFarland said we all agree with Ms. Hammond
in theory; we tried to get retailers in vain because of
the high rentals.
    Nancy Graham shares Ms. Hammond’s concerns.  We
have lost 5 shops lately, and her customers are not coming
into the James Store as much any more because there is not
enough shopping available.
    Keith Myers spoke in favor of the application.  
It’s a slippery slope when the Village defines basic
locations for businesses, and we have to rely on the
market to manage this issue.  Whit’s draws a lot of people.
    Mr. Salvage did not think GPC was the appropriate
body to decide this issue.
    Matt McGowan thought this was an issue for the
Chamber of Commerce.  Village Council is not trying to
keep any business from coming in.  The problem is the high
rent.
    Mr. Riffle noted empty storefronts are the worst
thing downtown.  We need to support businesses trying to
move in
    Mr. Parris said we do have a problem with  a
shortage of retail downtown, but as far as us being the
gatekeeper of who can go in there depends on what the code
says.  It’s frightening to see retail leaving, but where
are the new businesses?

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 03-118 AS
SUBMITTED.  MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Kathleen Reagan, 444 W. Broadway - Remodeling
    Mr. Strayer summarized the request for roof,
windows, aluminum siding, and gutters.  Roofing and
gutters will match materials previously used, and the
basic footprint will not change.  A landscaping plan will
be done later.
    Ms. Reagan further described the plan and
materials.  Vinyl siding will be applied after the old
siding is removed.  She loves old houses, and this one
will be in form with its neighbors.  She will enlarge the
tiny window in the kitchen and will change the height of
the window upstairs because of the fire code requirements,
and other windows will be brought up to code.  
    Mr. Riffle stated that sometimes the wood
underneath the siding is in good shape and it may be
cheaper to restore it and keep all window trim, and it
will look nicer than vinyl.  The applicant will consider
this.
    Mr. Salvage wanted to be sure the Village Planner
sees the materials.  He would like to give the applicant
the right to restore any wood siding.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-119 WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:  (1) APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT SAMPLES OF ROOF AND
SIDING TO VILLAGE PLANNER BEFORE INSTALLATION; (2)
APPLICANT HAS OPTION OF RESTORING WOOD SIDING UNDERNEATH
THE ALUMINUM SIDING; (3) APPLICANT WILL BE ALLOWED AS
NECESSARY TO CHANGE WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION TO MEET
EGRESS AND FIRE REQUIREMENTS.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Prudential Residential One, 142 East Broadway – Awning
 
    Mr. Strayer said the applicant wants to replace
the awning with a blue and white one of the same material.
    Mark Evans said they will replace the sign over
the awning.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-120 AS SUBMITTED.  MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Prudential Residential One, 142 East Broadway – Sign

    The wall sign for the above business will be
10.6x2.76 sq.ft on the Prospect Street side.  This is a
multi-tenanted building and though we allow one wall sign
per business, the applicant was approved for the variance
when the original changeover was made 14 months ago.  
    The sign over the awning will be painted to match
the awning and use same lettering.  The one on the side
will also repeat the stripe design with the same lettering.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-121 AS SUBMITTED.  MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Powell) AND ITEMS
A,B,C,D,E UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT
WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED
IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2003.  MR.
RUFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: Sinnett House
    Mary Mulligan, who lives directly south of Sinnett
House, and was concerned about the alley behind Sinnett
House.  Mr. Strayer said it is proposed to run along south
side and end in a parking lot and loading dock.  He
invited her to come to his office tomorrow to view the
plans for the house.
    Mr. McGowan said the alley is going to be closed
off except for deliveries.
    Mr. Salvage added that they will leave the bush
there and add a sidewalk.  

Other Comments:  Brian Newkirk expressed thanks that their
application was passed.  His commitment to people is that
they should be able to rent and buy buildings here.  He
wondered whether his situation was considered differently
from Whit’s because people looked ahead at the parking.
His businesses don’t have the required number of spaces
and he felt he was singled out.
    Mr. Salvage reminded him that the drawing
submitted was incomplete. Mr. Newkirk said they tried to
come to agreement and move 1st Federal’s spaces around. He
was afraid his wife’s business would be jeopardized for
lack of parking.  None of that happened, replied Mr.
Salvage.  “Decisions are made here, and we are sensitive
to issues.  We want to encourage businesses to thrive in
the Village, and if you have further problems, we will put
you on the agenda.”  Mr. Parris added that we had no
accurate drawing or contract or the number of spaces
required.
    Drew McFarland assumed everything was OK with the
sketch because they thought for a lesser use, they did not
need a permit.
    Mr. Newkirk said it’s a good decision not to pave
the lot.  You have given me some good advice, and it’s all
part of Village government.

Adjournment:  8:00 p.m.

Next Meetings:     September  22 and October 13

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen