Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 12/18/06

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 18, 2006
Minutes

Members Present:  Chip Blanchard, Jack Burriss, Jackie O'Keefe, Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle
Members Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld
Visitors Present: Sharon Sellitto, Paul Jakob, Jessica Rettig, Kevin Kittle, Mary Alice
Minutes of October 23: Page 2, correct spelling of wolmanized and other.   MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of November 13:  MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of November 27:  MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments:    none
Swearing in of Witnesses:

Old Business:

 INT Business Company, 117 N. Prospect St., Window Sign
 Mr. Strayer said the application calls for an internally lit sign, and the owner has asked us to hold off making a decision until the revised sign is designed.  He would recommend denying this so the applicant can start over.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO DENY THE APPLICATION.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Michael Novak, 204 Munson Street - freestanding sign
 This was tabled to get further clarification on the sign and post.  They are not here tonight, so the application is still on the table.

Sign Art (CVS) 200 East Broadway - Signage

 THE APPLICATION WAS TAKEN OFF THE TABLE BY CONSENSUS.

 Kevin Klack provided photos of CVS Pharmacies in New Albany and Westerville to compare with Granville, but nothing new was presented to us tonight, although several recommendations were mentioned at our last meeting.

Drive-Through Signs:   After much discussion, Mr. Klack wanted to omit Signs 7 and 8.  Though they are informational, they contain the CVS logo, thus making them signs. 

Freestanding Sign:    Again, much discussion ensued on the language to be put on the sign.  "CVS" will replace "Taylors."  The mortar and pestle will remain.  "Drugs" gets changed to "PHARMACY."  PHOTO CENTER" will replace PRESCRIPTIONS. The fonts and color will remain the same as the original sign and painted.  

Wall Signs:  Discussion centered on the number of signs, the font style, color, height of letters, and thickness.    Mr. Blanchard wants them to match the TAYLORS sign at top of building façade.  Mr. Klack defended the number of signs by saying CVS always wants a lot of signs.  CVS understood they could have what Taylors had.  The consensus was to have 1" thick block letters, flat black, 12" high.  Mr. Burriss said having CVS big and PHARMACY small is scale disproportionate. Consistency of height is important for all signs.   
 Mr. Riffle said we were happy to conform as long as CVS was willing to be flexible on font and size.  Now since you can't reproduce font and size, GPC is saying we would like to have fewer signs. The code allows one sign, but we are trying to be nice and give you more.   Consensus agreed to allow 2 signs, to be placed wherever CVS wishes.
 The TAYLOR sign at front façade will stay without DRUGS and be centered.

Directional Sign:   Sign No. 10 will be in block and match font on the building. 

Temporary Signs:  are to be removed.  Holes are to be filled.

Variance for 2 signs instead of 1:  Approval includes variances.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN PACKAGE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) No 7 AND 8 TO BE OMITTED; (2)  FREESTANDING SIGN FONTS WILL BE SAME COLOR AND SAME FONT (AS EXISTING), PAINTED; (3) TWO WALL SIGNS, CVS TO SELECT LOCATION; (4) 12" HIGH LETTERS; (5) 1" BLOCK LOGO, PAINTED FLAT BLACK; (6) REMOVE "DRUGS" FROM FRONT FAÇADE AND CENTER "TAYLORS"; (7) ON #10, DIRECTIIONAL SIGN, MATCH BLOCK LETTERS; (8) TEMPORARYWINDOW SIGN TO BE REMOVED; AND (9) REPAIR HOLES.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Members considered the criteria for variance for two signs:

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.  True, Special circumstances are that it is the biggest building in the downtown area with more frontage, more wall space, on a corner lot.
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.  True, other buildings have two wall signs. 
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  False.
D. That the granting of 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.  True, there are other structures with two wall signs.
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.  True, it would not adversely affect others.
 
Finding of Fact:  MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A AND C UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN MR. STRAYER'S MEMO OF DECEMBER 18.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

226 South Mulberry Street - Shared Driveway

 Mr. Strayer said the neighbors with 222 want an access agreement to put in the driveway as proposed.  The closing is very soon, contingent upon GPC's approving the idea without vote on a formal application, which will be forthcoming at the next meeting.  The application did come in but while Mr. Strayer was on vacation, so there was insufficient time to notify neighbors.  Both homeowners are in agreement.  Mr. Strayer said the only thing that would put a fly in the ointment would be if 222 did not want to sign; then we could not approve it.  There is a curb cut there now but no driveway.  Consensus agreed there was no problem in the plan.

Jessica Rettig, 111 West College Street

 The owners want to remove the existing rotting garage and build a two-story addition over a two-car garage.  The structure will be raised a couple of inches to allow drainage underneath.  The in-laws are moving in, so they need another bedroom and bath.  It will be slightly larger than the current garage and there will be steps into the house.
 GPC discussed the windows and requested a drawing of the rear elevation.
 Mr. Riffle wants to see more consistency with the house. 
 A neighbor was present and approved of the plans, but requested that the color be consistent across the front. Ms. Rettig stated they will match the color as closely as possible.

Kevin Kittle, 224 East College Street

 Mr. Kittle described the process he is undergoing to continue the renovation of the house begun by Lisa McKivergin.  They took the front walls out and put in new ones, but new problems arise and he would like someone from GPC to meet him at the house to look at what's going on. 
 Mr. Riffle noted that all the original trim has been stripped off and it was to have been preserved in its historical integrity. Mr. Kittle said it was rotten and being unable to buy 16" boards, he will replace them with 12" boards. The neighbors were happy that he was repairing the house, and no one told him it needed to be historically preserved. Mr. Strayer said he can replicate the best way he can.     Mr. Riffle noted that stripped of its original characteristics, the house looks like any other house.
 Mr. Blanchard thought the amended elevation is better than what was in there before, but our concern is that the applicant must adhere to the approved permit given to Lisa McKivergin.
 Mr. Strayer said there were two conditions to the application:  (1) final window design and placement be approved by him and (2) the fence is approved by him also.
 Mr. Burris asked the applicant to be sure corner boards are as the original the proportions need to be as they were.
 Mr. Riffle said that now that the building has been stripped of all its elements, it is no longer a historic building.
 Mr. Kittle said what was there was cedar shake covering the entire building.  Flat board siding covered that up.  They were going to go back to the flat board.
 Mr. Riffle asked how they were going to replicate the window trim, and Mr. Kittle said it's 1x4 with back board.  Mr. Riffle stated that we need to consider what was originally there and the wings, which were added on later are of lesser importance.

Adjournment:  9:23 p.m.
Next Meetings:  January 8, and 22
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 11/27/06

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
 November 27, 2006
Minutes

Members Present, Jack Burriss, Tim Riffle (Chair), Chip Blanchard, Debbie Tegtmeyer
Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell (Vice Chair),  Carl Wilkenfeld
Visitors Present:   Kevin Klack, Bill Heim, Tom Linzell, L. Hoirius, Matt McGowan
Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair  swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of October 23 and November 13:  Postponed until more members are present.
New Business:

Michael Novak, 204 Munson Street - Exterior Modifications

 The applicant wishes to change doors and shutters, add front canopy, and prepare the parking area for paving.  GPC approved a change of use for a chiropractic office earlier, and Mr. Novak provided blueprints tonight.  He explained how the plans will be altered a bit; there will be a handicapped ramp, and the doors  are as in the picture he provided.  The sign will match the Granville Lumber sign, with dark green.  The existing siding will go all the way down, covering the cinder block,  and Mrs. Novak (?) described the half shutters on each side.  The new porch will be shingled as the existing roof.  She said she will work on parking lot lighting.
 Mr. Strayer added that we can handle the paving and other things in regard to the parking lot later, after the engineer takes a look at it.
 Mr. Burriss asked about the air conditioner unit, and Mr. Novak said it will be on the opposite side.  
 Mr. Riffle asked about the window and was told it will be double-hung.  He wants to see a quick sketch of how the windows will look on the back. They will not change the opening for the door.  He noted that the new siding will not match the existing color exactly, as over time the sun alters the color.  Mrs. Novak said they will do the best they can, and with landscaping it will not be so visible.  Mr. Burriss said to leave the other three sides alone or paint it all. 
 It appeared to Mr. Burriss that on the site plan the fence is removed, and Mr. Novak said the architect was wrong about that. 
 Mr. Blanchard thinks the improvements to the façade are much needed.
 The lighting of the parking lot should be toned down, and they are to bring in a lighting plan.
 MR.BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 06-160 FOR EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THE VILLAGE PLANNER WILL APPROVE THE REAR WINDOW LAYOUT AND (2) A CUTSHEET FOR THE FRONT LIGHTS IS TO BE PROVIDED.   MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Michael Novak, 204 Munson Street - sign

 For the above application, the applicant wishes a freestanding sign and showed a picture of  his proposed 2x5 sign.  It will have a small light shining from the ground, to be lit only during open hours, and he showed where the light will be located.  It will be nicely landscaped.
 Mr. Burriss asked about materials and Mr. Novak said it will be weathered cedar like Granville Lumber's sign with the same color.
 Mr. Novak said it will have finials on the posts, and since no drawing was provided, Mr. Burriss helped him design the sign.  We need to know the exact size, and Mr. Novak will provide more detail
 
 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TABLE 06-161 FOR FREESTANDING SIGN PENDING RECEIPTOF DRAWING FOR MODIFICATION OF POSTS FROM SQUARE TO ROUND.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 UPON ADVICE OF THE LAW DIRECTOR THE MOTION NEEDED TO BE REOPENED AND AMENDED:

 MR. BURRISS MOVED TO REOPEN 06-161.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 MR. BURRISS MOVED TO AMEND OUR ORIGINAL CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AND REQUEST A CUT SHEET OF THE NEW COLUMN TO BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE OTHER THINGS WE STATED EARLIER.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 MR. BURRISS MOVED THAT 06-161 BE ENDORSED AS AMENDED.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Lelia Hoiriis, 222 South Mulberry - fence

 The application is for a 42" picket fence in front  and a dog-ear style fence in the rear. The front fence is to be erected after the installation of the shared driveway.  There is no driveway there currently, but they will add one later.  She wants to complete the front fence now and the rear fence later. 
Ms. Hoiriis said the fence will be outside the porch and will be dog-eared with 1 x 4 clipped corners.
Mr. Burriss asked how close to the public sidewalk would it be and she said right on the sidewalk.  Mr. Burriss      said typically we want it 9" or so back for sidewalk issues. 
Mr. Blanchard asked Ms. Hoiriis to show on the drawing where the fence would go.  He said he would prefer to see the fence be more consistent with the existing architercture.  The dog does not require a 6' fence, and he would prefer 42" in the rear.  Ms. Tegtmeyer thought it would look pretty much like the neighbor's fence.
 Mr. Burriss asked about a gate in the front and was told it would be where the walk is with a post on either side with a hinge inward.  In the back the gate will be somewhere toward the garage.
 Mr. Blanchard would like to attach a stipulation on material and color.

 MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE 061-162 FOR INSTALLATION OF THE FENCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) REAR FENCE TO MATCH FRONT FENCE IN HEIGHT AND DETAIL; (2) IT IS TO BE MADE OF NATURAL MATERIAL, CEDAR WOOD; (3) THE FRONT FENCE WILL BE HELD BACK 12" BEYOND THE EAST SIDE OF SIDEWALK.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

St. Edwards Church, 785 Newark Granville Road - Sign

 The freestanding sign is getting hard treatment and they want modifications to make it more readable.  They will use the same tag and same font.  Mr. Linzell, representative, said the letters will be slightly smaller.

MR. BURRISS MOVED THAT 06-163 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

INT Business Company, 117 N. Prospect Street
 This is to remain on the table.

CVS (Sign Art Co.), 200 East Broadway - Signage

 Mr. Strayer stated that we should address the fact that the application may require a variance for the number of signs.  The code allows 1 wall sign and 2 incidental signs; the proposal is for 5 walls signs and 4 incidental signs.  We thought it would be acceptable since Taylor's had that number of signs, but maybe a variance is needed.  We also need to provide an opportunity to discuss the freestanding sign and its language, and  Jim Gorey is here to help with legalities.  The Taylor's signs appear to be larger than the CVS signs and are within aesthetic reason and appear appropriate for the architecture.  For the pylon sign  CVS has 1½" deep aluminum faces painted GripGard semi-gloss white with black pressure sensitive vinyl, and Mr. Strayer does not feel this is appropriate.  He said we discussed what color Taylor's signs were (bronze), but we never made modification on color. 
 This evening we would have to approve variances for:
1. Number of wall signs
2. Size of incidental signs
3. Modifications to design

 Mr. Burriss had requested that letters be all one size, and we shrank it to the size of the Taylor signs.
He asked if they had looked at the possibility of "CVS Pharmacy" being in the same font as "Taylor's", and Kevin Klack said No. 
 Mr. Blanchard said upon reading the description for signage, he does not feel these were consistent with what we tried to get, and Mr. Burriss did not think the material CVS supplied was high glossy semi-gloss black. 
 Mr. Riffle said we are looking at signage for the business.  The building signage is something separate
 Mr. Blanchard appreciates "Taylor Drug" being on top of the building, but it seems to compete with CVS signage.  Mr. Riffle does not consider it part of CVS signage; "TAYLOR" advertises the building and "CVS" advertises the business.
 Matt McGowan noted that there was a freestanding sign at IGA and they wanted to change it and they were not allowed to do so and had to put in a monument sign. The sign in front of CVS is a historic sign and should not be altered. Village Council should limit signs.  Bob Evans and Arbys limited their signs.  When you tell someone that you have to limit signs, you have to limit CVS also.  Signage at Westerville is smaller, and GPC needs to look at other CVS stores.  No other drive-through has two signs on the wall. 
Kevin Klack said tonight's sign package includes improvements we talked about at the last meeting. 
Mr. Riffle reminded the group that we need to look at the number of signs.  One wall sign is allowed.  Should we grant a variance to allow more than one?
Mr. Strayer said under the code the total number of one per building, maximum size is 262 sq.ft and the proposed area is 65 sq.ft. 
Re incidental signage, the maximum number is two per lot and they ask for 4.  Where they are more in number, they are less in square footage. 
Mr. Burriss would like to see photographs for the New Albany CVS.  We thought these would be brought in earlier. 
Mr. Strayer wanted to move forward with temporary approval for the freestanding sign and allow them to remove the last "Taylors" from the west side.
Mr. Riffle does not mind if he takes the Taylor signs off.  This does not refer to the marquee.
Jim Gorey cited from the code that you may look at this application as a whole.  If you approve it, you automatically approve the variances.  You may do it one by one.
Ms. Tegtmeyer asked whether CVS really needs so many signs, and Mr. Klack said CVS wanted as many signs as would be allowed.  They wanted to use what was there before as site replacement.  Ms. Tegtmeyer thought that then there really is no compelling reason,
Mr. Burriss would be comfortable looking at the change of the name of the building and the free standing sign in the front and probably would not look at the proposed 4 signs for the building until we have photos for other CVS stores.
Mr. Blanchard noted the proposal of the gigantic block letters hurts the request to put in that many.  As prominent as they are, they are completely inappropriate.
The discussion centered upon changing the language on the pylon sign and the colors.  The sign would not be allowed today. 
Mr. McGowan stated that the Taylor's pylon sign could be moved as long as it was not modified. That sign counts as a building sign if you allow them to change it.    Mr. Blanchard noted they did not have vinyl letters when the sign was erected in 1906. 
Mr. Burriss suggested leaving the sign exactly as it was and omitting it from the CVS sign package. He would hate to see it torn down, as it is a piece of appropriate street literature history.   It becomes more of an element, like the clock, the drinking fountain, or the bell, and Mr. Blanchard agrees.  When you start removing things, you start losing your village character.
Jim Gorey noted that we need to consider issues on (1) whether we have control over the sign under historic preservation and (2) content of the sign.  Unless we can maintain some historic preservation of the character of the sign, we need to be careful about discussing the content of the sign.  If we can't maintain the antiquity, we have no right to let anyone change the face except for nonconforming the sign.  We could end up buying it. 
Mr. Klack said CVS was not enthusiastic about keeping the mortar and pestle.
Mr. Burriss reviewed the discussion so far:
1. He thinks GPC is in favor of what we discussed so far.
2. His understanding was that "Taylors" will stay on top of the building and "Drugs" will be removed.
3. Have only one drive-through sign.  Remove "CVS Pharmacy".
4. We are allowed 4 sq.ft per sign for incidental signs.
5. Remove signage above west window.
6. We are not comfortable with the thickness of the letters or the color of the material.
7. GPC likes the awning.

Mr. Strayer said if the incidental signs are part of the signage, then where would be7 wall signs instead of 5-two wall signs in the back and the parking sign and 2 12'  signs.
  Mr. Riffle noted that on the drive-through pharmacy sign, it says, "Let us know if you want anything else."  But cars are not supposed to sit there.  It does not say "drive-through pharmacy and other incidental items."
 Mr. Blanchard thought we could combine those two signs into one.  Mr. McGowan said drive-throughs are not permitted in Granville. 
   Mr. Blanchard asked from a legal standpoint is it more advantageous to table this and consider all the entities as one package, and Mr. Gorey said that is up to you.  You may take it piece by piece and construct a final decision or construct a single package. Mr. Burriss thought the package as proposed is not acceptable. 
 Mr. Riffle said when we approved it originally we thought it was a replacement.  Mr. Strayer wanted him to go back to CVS and design something similar to what was there before.  We need a similar font and more style in letters. 
1.We would like to see the store sign changed in the manner we talked about.
 2. We would like to see the masthead changed to TAYLOR as proposed.
3. Signage on building to be done in a one-foot-high consistent letters across entire sign  but in a font, material, and mounting consistent with the building.
4. The current incidental signs must be smaller
5. We want to look at New Albany signs.
6. Remove CVS from incidental signs
7. Combine 2 drive-through signs.  Remove possibility of purchasing additional items. 
8. Have all fonts and logos be consistent.
9. "Drive-through Pharmacy" needs to be consistent.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TABLE 06-147.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:   MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A,C, AND D  UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF NOVEMBER 27, 2006.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9:40 p.m.
Next Meetings:    December 18 and January 8

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 11/13/06

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 13, 2006
7:00pm
Minutes

Members Present: Carl Wilkenfeld, Tom Mitchell, Chip Blanchard, Tim Riffle (Chair).
Members Absent: Jack Burriss and Jackie OKeefe
Visitors Present: Deb Tegtmeyer, Leon Habbegger, Curt Komley, Jay Jenkins
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak. 
Citizen's Comments:  No one appeared to speak. 

Minutes of October 23, 2006 - Consideration of minutes was postponed until all members could be present for reviewal.

Mr. Strayer suggested postponing the review of the zoning code changes scheduled on the Agenda.
 
New Business:
1820 Newark-Granville Road, Spring Hills Church, #06-152
PUD, TCOD
Temporary Event Parking

Leon Habbegger stated that he was representing Spring Hills Baptist Church and they wish to use an open lot located in the rear of their property for special event parking. 

Mr. Strayer recommended approval of the application with the following conditions:
1) Only use when explicit permission is given by the Village Staff
2) When not in use, the area must be sectioned off from the parking lot by parking blocks, fence, etc….to ensure conformance.
3) If they plan on using the lot more than once a month, some type of screening is installed on the edge that borders the subdivision.  This could be fencing, earthen berm, evergreen trees, etc. 

Mr. Wilkenfeld indicated that he supported recommendation #3 and he would like to make a decision that is in balance with what the neighbors want.  He inquired if Mr. Strayer wanted the first recommendation so they can keep track of how often the parking lot is being used.  Mr. Strayer stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if there was any reason that the applicant wasn't applying for a permanent parking permit.  Mr. Strayer explained that the current zoning code does not explicitly require the applicant to install fencing or trees as a barrier between the subdivision and the parking lot.  He went on to say that this is due to the current residential zoning.  Mr. Strayer indicated that only Council would have the authority to change the zoning from Residential to Institutional by way of Ordinance and he suggested that this should possibly be considered.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it seems cumbersome to him to have the church ask the Village each time they wish to allow parking on the lot. 

Mr. Riffle asked if the current drainage of water impedes flow to the drains.  Mr. Strayer stated that this problem has been fixed to the engineers satisfaction.  Mr. Blanchard also inquired about the problem that neighbors had with water drainage.  Mr. Strayer indicated that he has not heard any further complaints from the neighbors about water drainage. 

Curt Komley, 133 Wicklow Drive, stated that he lives near the parking lot.  He distributed a signed letter from several neighbors in his subdivision who would not like to see parking allowed on the lot.  He stated that originally the lot was never proposed or approved for parking.  He stated that trailers and equipment have been left to sit on the lot and there is a history of conflict regarding this area.  Mr. Komley stated that there is no screening and the lot if very close to several back yards in his neighborhood.  Mr. Komley suggested that the church use the ample parking below this lot on their property.  He stated that they currently experience problems from high noise levels and they question if their property values have decreased.  Mr. Komley stated that they would like to see the area left as green space because they were originally told that this is what it would be.  He stated that they would also like to have a permanent barrier, mounding or pine trees, and proper screening.  Mr. Komley suggested rezoning the area.  Mr. Wilkenfeld asked Mr. Komley if he would like to see a barrier similar to what is already located from the church to Newark-Granville Road.  Mr. Komley stated yes. 
Mr. Mitchell inquired on how many of the neighbors signed the letter.  Mr. Komley stated that he contacted five neighbors and only four were available to sign the letter.  He stated that the fifth neighbor is in agreement and he could provide his name and phone number for verification.  Mr. Strayer stated that he received an email from Mr. Mork indicating that he is in agreement with Mr. Komley.  Mr. Mitchell stated that given the objections by the neighbors he feels the application needs more consideration and perhaps permanent parking is what the applicant should be applying for.  Mr. Blanchard asked if the application called for green space.  Mr. Strayer stated that the current code does not specify gravel versus green grass - it just says open space.  Assistant Law Director Gorry stated that the code states that the Planning Commission can make minor modifications to a PUD, but if this Commission does not see this as minor they could request Council to rezone.  Mr. Gorry read aloud Section 1183.04.  The members of the Planning Commission discussed possible barriers that could be installed.  Mr. Riffle showed concern if mounds or berms were installed that it could pose potential drainage problems for the housing subdivision.  The parties involved reviewed pictures depicting the open lot and surrounding areas.  Mr. Habbegger stated that there is a history of problems with the neighbors regarding drainage problems.  He stated that the church was built before the subdivision and the problems are those of the homeowners.  Mr. Habbegger stated that they would allow the homeowners to run tile piping through the church property at the expense of the homeowner.  He stated that he does not see a solution to the matter and he believes nothing will please the neighbors. 

Mr. Habbegger stated that he will just not use the open lot and he will put up some railroad ties blocking it off.  Mr. Habbegger wished to withdraw his application.

Application #06-152 is WITHDRAWN.


464 South Main Street, #06-153
CSD, TCOD
Sidewalk Sign Modification

Mr. Jenkins stated that he wished to add four to six inches to the top of the sign to make it slightly larger than 2 ½ x 4 ft.  Mr. Strayer stated that the application was approved six months back and Mr. Jenkins is now back to extend the application for another six months.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he does not believe the Main Street Commerce sign is effective and he would like to see the largest part of the sign be changed so that you are able to read what businesses are located in the area.  Mr. Wilkenfeld agreed.  Mr. Riffle stated that the matter before the Commission is for a six month temporary sign and not the Main Street Commerce sign Mr. Mitchell is referring to.  Mr. Mitchell stated that perhaps Mr. Jenkins can let the owner, Fred Abraham, know that he is willing to approve this temporary sign, but he may not be willing to approve it in the future until the sign is fixed.  Mr. Strayer stated that he too could talk with Fred Abraham. 

Mr. Riffle stated that Mr. Jenkins would need to provide the sign dimensions to Mr. Strayer.  Mr. Jenkins stated that this would not be a problem and he would fax them over the following day. 

Mr. Wilkenfeld moved to approve Application #06-153 with the condition that the application only be good for six months.  Second by Mr. Blanchard. 

Roll Call Vote for Application #06-153
Mitchell, Riffle, Wilkenfeld, Blanchard.  Motion passed (4-0). 
The motion was unanimously approved. 


117 North Prospect Street, #06-154
VBD, AROD
Window Sign

Mr. Strayer stated that the applicant asked to have the application tabled because they are waiting on a new sign. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to table Application #06-154.  Second by Mr. Wilkenfeld. 


Finding of Fact Approvals
Mr. Wilkenfeld moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Item B on the Agenda, and he stated that we find them consistent with the relevant sections of the zoning code as outlined by the Village Planner.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.  The motion was unanimously approved. 


Work Session
The Planning Commission met with Assistant Law Director Jim Gorry.  Mr. Gorry briefly outlined the rules and procedures of the Planning Commission.

Next meetings:
November 27, 2006

December 11, 2006 (Mr. Strayer indicated that he will not be available to attend this meeting.  The committee discussed having just one meeting in December)

Adjournment: ______ pm. 


Submitted by:
Melanie Schott

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 10/23/06

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
 October 23, 2006
Minutes

Members Present, Jack Burriss, Tim Riffle (Chair), Tom Mitchell (Vice Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Jackie O'Keefe
Visitors Present:  Jeremiah Conkle, Kevin Kluck, Scott Rees, Jaimy Rees
Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of September 11, September 25, and October 10:  On page 3 of September 25, No. (3) in Bussan motion, change to:   "THE COLOR WILL BE DARK GRAY."
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE ALL THREE SETS OF MINUTES WITH CORRECTION NOTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:

Kathleen Raker, 204 South Main Street, Change of Use

 The applicant is seeking a change of use from Professional Office to Service and Recreation Business.   The use is permitted, and the parking is adequate. 
 Jeremiah Conkle said he wants to open a barber shop, and his wife is a RN completing her classes and will be working with doctors in the other side of the business.  Her portion is the skin care part of the job. They tried to keep the sign in context with other signs in the area.  The barber pole has a red stripe.

 MR.WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 06-145 FOR CHANGE OF USE AS SUBMITTED.  .   MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Kathleen Raker, 204 South Main Street, Change of Use

 In addition to the change of use, the applicant wishes a dry-erase two-sided plastic sign, and Mr. Conkle said the stripe on the barber pole will be red, but will not be a loud red.  [n.b. there is a typo on "holidays closed."]    The rest of the sign is black and white. 
 Mr. Mitchell asked about other signs and was told, No, that is why they want a sidewalk sign.  It's hard to see the front door.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said sidewalk signs are permitted only when the business is open.
 Mr. Burris noted that traditionally we like to have sidewalk signs framed, and Mr. Conkle said the actual sign stands out and there is a ½" black edge frame.  There is a handle grip 2" above the letters. 

 MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 06-143 FOR SIDEWALK SIGN WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ONLY COLOR BESIDES BLACK IS THE RED STRIPES ON THE BARBER POLE AND THAT THE SIGN HAS A ½" BORDER. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Julia McNally, Westgate Drive - sign

 The application is for a womanized wooden directional sign on the corner of Westgate and Cherry Valley Road, directing people where the Dog Center business is.  In the future other directional signs might be added, but other owners did not sign on at this time.  Ms. McNally submitted three drawings.  For stability two posts will anchor the sign.  Mr. Strayer wants her to keep it a similar height to Stypula's. 
 Mr. Mitchell wanted approval contingent upon Mr. Strayer's final approval on height.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 06-146 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) IT IS GOING TO BE THE SIGN THAT IS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF DRAWING, EXHIBIT A; (2) THE COLORS WILL COPY THE ORIGINAL; (3) SIGN IS TO HAVE TWO 2X4' WOMANIZED WHITE POSTS ANCHORED IN THE GROUND; (3) MR. STRAYER TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL ON HEIGHT; AND (4) SIGN IS TO BE 3X4'.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

CVS (Sign Art Co.), 200 East Broadway - Signage

 Kevin Klack presented the sign package and apologized for hanging signs before getting approval.  They are removing copy from the drive-through.  The awning is changed from the application.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether they could tone down the red a little bit and Mr. Riffle whether the awning in the back will match the one in the front.  Mr. Klack said, No, it's CVS red, and Mr. Riffle said we don't want three different awnings.  Greg Ream can tell you who made the awnings, and Mr. Klack said they will keep the same awnings.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld knows a large company wants their color and signage, but we have some exceptions here.  The pharmacy sign out front is a historical sign in a historical district, and we need to find a compromise here.  He would like to see us keep some flavor instead of plastering on new signs.
 Mr. Riffle said technically by code we could not keep that sign, but because it has historical significance we would rather see it different from CVS bright red.  The sign should stay as is, with the gray and put "CVS" at the top and match the colors there.   Mr. Klack said that is a copyright logo, but Mr. Riffle noted that he didn't think people will be confused as to which is CVS.  Mr. Klack is trying to work with us and wants to keep the historic part.  Mr. Burriss added that we want to see historical integrity maintained, but the sign would lose all of its historical significance as a red sign with the back changed.  He does not think it needs to say "pharmacy/ prescriptions."    The portion of the top currently saying "Taylor's" we are willing to see changed to CVS, but anything else we like to see remain as is, including color and graphics.  Remove "Photo Center" and put it where it says "prescriptions."
Mr. Klack wants a brand new sign, and Mr. Burriss said that is exactly what we do not want.
For other signs on the building, Mr. Burriss appreciates their willingness to go with material on previous signs, but make it more consistent with signage we have encouraged in the rest of the village.  Ideally he would like to see it all in the same font.
Mr. Riffle thought toning down the color would make it more tolerable.
Mr. Klack said the building is designed to have the signs displayed in this fashion.
Mr. Mitchell wants the letters proportional to the background.  Let "CVS" be the same height as "Taylor's" is now with same proportion and background.  Mr. Burriss wanted letters to be 12" high, and he thought 4 signs would be OK. The "CVS" is too big, but "pharmacy" can stay the same.   Mr. Klack noted that the signs are already painted.  
On the freestanding sign the colors are to match the existing ones.
Mr. Klack was unsure about the "Taylor's parking only" sign, and Mr. Strayer said it could be removed. 
They are to tone down the color to be more consistent with the red on the awning in the front.  The red will carry on to the other signs.  The background will be gray.
Regarding the "Media Yellow" noted on Sign No. 9, Mr. Klack said they are matching the building, but Mr. Burriss wants them to make it tan on gray background.
Mr. Burriss asked whether they will fill the holes and was told Yes. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 06-147 WITH CONDITIONS OUTLINED BELOW.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED:
(1) Awning color to match existing color.
(2) Maximum height is to match existing height with option to reduce "pharmacy" in proportion with reduced "CVS."  At no point will that signage be larger than 12".
(3) On freestanding sign, all language, designs, colors to remain the same.  "Taylor's" to be repeated with "CVS" colors to be maintained with existing sign.
(4) Drive-through wall signage to have red color to match awning with gray background.
(5) "Taylor's Parking Only" sign to be replaced with "CVS Parking only" colors to match design on 7, 8, and 9.
(6) Details of 7, 8, and 9 to match existing signs' background or darker.
(7) Sign No. 9 to have red to match 7 and 8 and background to be gray.
(8) Temporary sign is to be removed.

Finding of Fact:   MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A,B,C, AND D  UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF OCTOBER 23, 2006.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:30 p.m.
Next Meetings:    November 13 (Betty will be absent Nov. 13) and November 27

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 10/10/06

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
 October 10, 2006
Minutes

Members Present, Jack Burriss, Debbie Tegtmeyer for Jackie O'Keefe, Tim Riffle (Chair), Tym Tyler
Members Absent: Tom Mitchell (Vice Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld

Visitors Present:  Paul Quinn, Gordon Glissman, Christine Beckman 
Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of September 11 and September 25: Postponed until the absentees can be present. 

New Business:

Christine Beckman, 452 West Broadway, Fence

  For the new fencing in the rear, Ms. Beckman requests a 6' cedar privacy fence (neighbor friendly) and prefers the finish to be natural.  She has not yet talked to the neighbors, but she will soon.  
 Mr. Burriss noted that we require some sort of finish, stain or color, and frequently the color matches the house.   Mr. Tyler added that even a natural finish requires a stain or color. 
Mr. Burriss also noted that there is no gate pictured on the site plan but Ms. Beckman did not know where to put the gate although it would likely go along the driveway.  She wants the fence next to the neighbor's fence, but Mr. Burriss said she cannot have it one foot from the other; rather, she should have a minimum of 3 feet between.
 Ms. Beckman also wants a lattice over the driveway, and, lacking a picture, GPC agreed to defer approval to Mr. Strayer. 
 Of the sample fences pictured, GPC preferred No. 1, the white one pictured.

  MR.TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 06-141 FOR FENCING WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS :  (1)  GATE TO BE ON THE EAST SIDE OF FENCE ALONG DRIVEWAY, NEAR THE HOUSE; (2) GATE ON THE REAR; (3) ARBOR TO BE APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER; (4) TEXTURE AND COLOR OF FENCE TO BE #1 IN THE PHOTOS SENT TO US; (5) FENCE TO BE TREATED WITH NATURAL CLEAR STAIN OR COLOR; (6) 3' SEPARATION TO BE BETWEEN THE EXISTING FENCE TO THE NORTH AND THIS ONE.   MR.BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Angela Amos Barker, 204 South Main Street - Sign
 MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 The application had been tabled pending picture of sign design, which Ms. Barker presented this evening.  The new wooden sign will hang on the existing signpost but will have new fonts, and the color is to be burgundy, white, and black.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 06-134 FOR FREESTANDING SIGN AS IN THE DRAWING SUBMITTED TONIGHT. MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Wellert Corporation, Arby's, Speedway Drive - Development Plan

 Paul Quinn showed the site plan, which has not changed much.  They made the revisions GPC recommended. After a question about the engineering site plans, they were sent to the village engineer and the recommendations he made were completed. 
 Gordon Blissman showed the landscaping plans and has met with the Tree and Landscape Committee, who seemed comfortable with the plans.  He showed the rendering coming in off Speedway Drive.  They are landscaping both entrances and they will be compatible with Speedway.  The evergreens will be exactly alike
 Mr. Burriss said on the southwest side we talked about the placement of the tree on the lot so that the tree on the Arby lot and the Speedway tree will be staggered, and Mr. Blissman showed their location.
 Mr. Quinn said they will be using the same material for the base for the post lights. 
 Mr. Burriss asked about the awnings and was told they will be green and the roof the same green.  Speedway wanted us to use the same parking lot lighting, and ours is green.  The canopy has green posts.  He asked about the bollards around the gas meter which shows a yellow color but was told they will match the brick.
 Mr. Tyler thought the applicants have made a lot of alterations to Arby's typical cookie cutter design, and Mr. Gilbert said a lot of times a municipality wants changes. 
 There will be a hose for cleaning the dumpster.  The grease will go into a pit for a truck to pick up weekly. 
 Mr. Burriss said we prefer the green columns for lighting, and recommended picking up the color supporting the canopy lighting.  He suggested a fluted parking light post.  We need to be sure lighting does not escape.
 Regarding signage, Mr. Quinn showed material for the 24' monument sign.  The hat is 13.5 sq.ft. Mr. Strayer said the freestanding sign can be 18 sq.ft. They will match Speedway's monument sign.    Regarding signage on the building, Arby's wants 4, but the code says one per building, but it's up to GPC as to how to approve this.  Mr. Burriss wants to eliminate one sign on the building.  Mr. Quinn said they could probably go to 30" from the requested 36" and keep four of them, 5.5' long.
 Mr. Burriss asked what the menu board would look like and was told it is on the specs.  The red will be gone, and the canopy over the ordering window will be green.
 Next steps:  Need foot candle schematics
 Need material from the engineer
 Need any changes GPC makes tonight
 This will be a recommendation for approval with conditions to Village Council, who will use GPC's Finding of Fact with conditions.  They will have revised plans to look at.
 Mr. Burriss is comfortable and said they have done everything we asked for.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 04-024 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1), THE WALL SIGNS WILL BE DOWNSIZED TO 30"; (2) FOOT CANDLE DIAGRAM FOR LIGHTING IS TO BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED; (3) ALL OTHER GRANVILLE DEPARTMENT HEADS MUST APOPROVE DRAWINGS; (4) BOLLARDS WILL NOT BE YELLOW BUT PAINTED A COLOR TO COORDINATE WITH THE BRICK; AND (5) MONUMENT SIGN IS TO MATCH THE BRICK.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:   MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND A AND B UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF OCTOBER 1O, 2006.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:06 p.m.
Next Meetings:    October 23 and November 13 (Betty will be absent Nov. 13)

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger