Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

« Planning Minutes 1/27/03 | Main
Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 1/13/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 13, 2003
 Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris
(Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Richard Main
Citizens Present:  Steve Mershon, Walt Denny, Mary & Mark
Milligan, Tim Riffle, Mike Frazier, Art Chonko, Seth
Patton, Chuck Peterson, Ned Roberts, Evelyne and Helmut
Poelzing
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments:  None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of November 13, 2002:  Page 4, Change Mary
Mulligan to Mary Milligan.  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO ADOPT THE
MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of December 9:  Page 3, ¾ of the way down, change
to ”Mr. Parris feels we should have a discussion, for how
we interpret the sign code is how we would go in the
future and why.”  
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.
MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

New Business:  

Steve Mershon, 110 East Elm Street - Signs
    
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant wishes to (1) add
a panel to the existing ground sign, to be 32”x15”, double
sided, and colors to be black and navy on a white
background.
A pair of directional signs would be placed at the bottom
of the stairs and outside Mr. Mershon’s office door.  All
signs are consistent with other tenant signs.  
  A variance is necessary for number of signs, but Mr.
Salvage reminded the group that another tenant received a
variance for the same signage as Mr. Mershon is requesting.
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether the white would be as bright
as that in the picture and was told the white could be
softened.
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.   Yes, special conditions exist.
    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.  
Yes, a literal interpretation would deprive applicant of
his rights.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  This is obvious.
D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this
Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district.  .It would not confer undue privilege.
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 THE VARIANCE FOR THE SIGN
PACKAGE FOR APPLICATION #02-162, BASED UPON OUR REVIEW OF
THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE UNDER THE CODE.  
MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-162 AS
PRESENTED.  MR.BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Evelyne Poelzing, 126 West Elm Street – Convert Barn into
One-Car Garage

    Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant wishes to
convert the barn into a one-car garage. The outside would
remain the same except for the single door on the south
side.  The floor would be cemented with apron, and the
existing concrete driveway would be extended with gravel.  
A short picket fence would be installed around the turn-
around of the driveway.
    Ned Roberts explained the siding they have planned
with a board and batten look for the front.  The door
would be paneled and they could stick battens on the door
instead of having it flush.  
    Mr. Parris asked if there is a way they could
dress it down with laminations or something to make it
look less like a door.
    Ms. Poelzing said the gray color will blend in
with the existing color scheme.
    Mr. Burriss is concerned with the door’s
rectangular shape with rounded tops. He recommended that
the applicants study Steve Mershon’s door, which we worked
hard on.  It has a flat horizontal door beyond which we
put a plywood door with framing and window.   We need to
know exactly what the final door will look like.  Ned
Roberts said it would be a metal door close to arches,
with flush panels with batten strips.  It is far back on
the lot   Mr. Burriss asked about a horizontal door with
rough plywood on top, and Ms. Poelzing said the metal door
is a matter of maintenance.  The rest of the barn is wood
and naturally aged, and Mr. Burris is concerned about
maintaining the subtlety and character of the barn.  He is
not very excited about a panel.  
    Mr. Burriss knows Ned Roberts will arrange for
drainage so there will not be any rotting.  The applicants
have done good work on the front of the house and he would
like to make this plan consistent with that.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld asked that since you have to take
off the board and battens anyway, could you apply that to
the front of the metal door, but was told that would be
too heavy a door.
    Ms. Poelzing said the big pine tree would hide the
garage
    Mr. Parris has no objection to the type of door if
it can be colored or textured to give the same flavor as
the barn.  It is not very visible from the street.
    Mr. Salvage would not like to see a bright white
door there.
    Ned Roberts said they could go with a flush door
and texture can be put on it.  

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-159 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THAT THE FINISH OF THE FLAT
STEEL GARAGE DOOR IS SUBMITTED TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND
COMMISSIONER BURRISS FOR FINAL APPROVAL; AND (2) THAT THE
FENCE MATERIAL IS TO BE CEDAR.  

Mark Milligan, 212 East Elm Street – Construct Two-Car
Garage

    Mr. Dorman said the application is to build a 1 ½
story garage with storage at the top and (2) a pergola
will tie into the existing landscaping.  A variance is
needed for the rear setback.  Colors will match the house.
Ms. Lucier asked about the window details, and Mr. Burriss
is comfortable with the plan.  Probably the light fixtures
are to be determined, and that should be a condition. She
also asked whether the tree would have to come down
    Mr. Milligan said the further they move the garage
to the house, the more they block the neighbor’s view.  
The Westbrook’s tree is a buffer
Mr. Burriss said it’s one of our wonderful, small Village
lots, and in order for them to have any consistency with
garden space, the proposed placement of it makes sense.  
To put the garage closer to the house would make an
imposition to the house.  
    Mr. Burriss would like Mr. Dorman to look at final
plans for downspouts and for final lighting fixtures.
 
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-001 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THAT THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT
THE LIGHT FIXTURES FOR FINAL APPROVAL BY THE VILLAGE
PLANNER; AND (2) THAT THE SIDING AND DOORS WILL BE WHITE
TO MATCH THE BACK PORTION OF THE HOUSE.  MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Denison University – Refigure a Portion of Burg Street

    Art Chonko showed plans to change the road to Burg
Street They have changed the road behind Mitchell and they
will have a new connector road between the two new
buildings and the parking garage.  The third component is
to get around campus without leaving campus.  They will
remove parking and put it in the garage. The roads will be
two-way roads all around campus, and they plan to start in
the spring.  For the main intersection at Burg and
Thresher, they will push Burg toward Thresher to allow a
two-way road around Shorney and maintain parking on Burg.  
The college is working with the Village on the parking
situation, since they share the Burg parking lot.  He said
there may be footpaths installed.  
    Mr. Burriss asked about a retention wall and was
told it might be riprap or a wall.  He thought entryway
gate posts would be nice.  Mr. Burriss said you also need
landscaping to separate the two roads, and Mr. Chonko said
they have not gotten that far yet. Mr. Burriss is also
concerned about headlights shining into neighboring
houses.  Mr. Chonko said they will use Granville style
lighting Mr. Salvage recommended guardrails and Mr. Chonko
thought the guardrails might be similar to the post and
beam posts at the little bridge near the golf course.
    Mr. Parris said the more traffic you can get off
Burg Street, the safer it will be.  

Finding of Fact:  MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND
THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING
CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF JANUARY
8, 2003.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Business:  Sidewalk Signs. Mr. Dorman said the
maximum number of signs per storefront is 4, but what
about the rear of a store?  A sidewalk sign is an
individual sign and should be counted in the total number
of signs.
    Mr. Wilkenfeld thought in some places you can’t
walk two abreast for all the signs, and Mr. Dorman said
such signs must not be an obstruction.  Mr. Burriss would
like to discourage any more sidewalk signs.
    Regarding definition of “storefront,” Mr. Salvage
said sometimes we give permission for signs in the rear
and how should that be interpreted.  Mr. Dorman said the
logical way to interpret storefront is as a business.  
    We are not going to be able to write a perfect
code, thought Mr. Parris, and a lot of this is subject to
interpretation.  If we are going to change the way we
interpret, we need to agree.  Variances are always
possible.  
    Mr. Wilkenfeld said anything that announces a
store is a sign regardless if it’s in the back.
    Sometimes, as in the Bakery, directional signs are
necessary.  Mr. Salvage thought a storefront is not a
business; it is the front of a store.  Nor is an alley a
storefront.  But Mr. Wilkenfeld said directional signs for
deliveries should be approved by the Village Planner
    In the case of a building with multiple tenants,
each tenant is a separate store front, added Mr. Parris.  
    Mr. Dorman asked if is important to limit the
total number of signs for a business and was told yes and
Mr. Parris said you always nave a variance option.  The
code tries to balance the business as well as how we want
the village to look.  We need to agree on what is a
variance situation and what is not.  
    Mr. Salvage asked whether we need to establish a
definition of storefront and was told yes.
    For a business on a corner lot, Mr. Salvage said
we decided to give them additional square footage but no
additional signs.
    To sum up:
    
    Storefront signs are at the primary entrance of
the business.
Informational signs, such as Visa or MasterCard, should be
excluded from the maximum count.
Such signs are to be determined by GPC upon application.
    Mr. Dorman will draft an amendment that would
define informational signs.
    Be flexible on number of informational signs.
    Sidewalk signs are included in the total number of
signs per business.

Adjournment: 9:10 p.m.
Next Meetings:  January 27 and February 10

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen




Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>