GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 14, 2003
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
MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MS.
LUCIER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
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
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
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
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
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
Mr. Parris does not want the mechanicals to show
from the front, and Mr. Wesson said they will be hidden by
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
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
Adjournment: 9:30 p.m.
Next Meetings: October 27 and November 10
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
Response: cheap louis vuittonat cheap louis vuitton on September 26, 2013Village of Granville, Ohio - Planning Minutes 2003 - Planning Minutes 10/14/03