Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes 12/6/1999


December 6,1999


Members Present:Keith Myers C( hairR),ichard Salvage,Bernie Lukco

Members Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld,Bill Wernet,Jack Burriss

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors Present: Greg Ream,Rodger Kessler,Scott Rawdon S(entinel)G,ary Stansbury

Called to order: 7. 30 p.m.

Citizens'Comments: none

Old Business:

Chapter 1189 -Signs

Mr. Myers noted that one ofthe key intentions ofrewriting the sign code was to address

the different areas ofthe Village. The current sign code is difficult to apply everywhere

even anywhere).The draft out now is the most recent. Hopefully this meeting tonight

will help the Commission gather public comment on the code. Then the commission will

forward the revised code to Village Council for approval.

Gary Stansbury asked for some clarifications on some sections in the code. In

particular,he asked what the abbreviations meanti .(e.:VRD=Village Residential

District). Ms. Wimberger and Mr. Lukco noted that defining the zoning districts in the

definitions section would be suitable.

Greg Ream asked what the sign dimensions were possible under this new code in

the VBD ( Village Business District).On page 5, there needs to be a clarification ofthe

allowable square footage under general provisionsf o(r all zoning districts)that the 2.5

lineal feet +25%for the second street frontage. It should read 2.5 square feet per lineal

foot +25%for the second street frontage. Mr. Ream wondered why someone on the

corner would be privileged to get so much signage. He thought there was not enough

latitude in the code for businesses to maintain their charm and different type and styles of


It was noted that the temporary signs2 (square feet)is too small to cover what

most temporary signs might be.

A question about the maintenance of signs p(articularly grandfathered signsw) ould

not be able to be maintained under the new code. Mr. Myers an Mr. Lukco noted that the

intent ofthe code is to allow proper maintenance on a sign,not to punish. They hope that

the flexibility has not changed from the existing code. Hopefully the new code will help

maintain the character ofthe Village. Mr. Ream said line 34 of 1189.15 ofthe new code

GPC Minutes;November 1, 1999

leads him to understand that repair and maintenance of nonconforming signs is impossible.

Mr. Kessler said the ORC 1860 says that any sign that currently exists legally is

grandfathered. Thius sort oflanguage could be used when this code is passed.

Mr. Stansbury wondered about the thought process for developing the new

standards,was it orientated to the pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The Commission noted

that in the outlying commercial districts, the speed of the vehicular traffic was taken into


It was determined that additional definitions were necessary to clarify and make

the code more understandable. In particular,Mr. Ream was concerned about the

insurance labels he is required to post in his window for the pharmacy. The commission

thought that a good name for these signs might be customer convenience signs. These

signs would be exempt from permits.

Mr. Kessler noted that wall signs need to be atleast 12 inches deep rather than 6

inches, to accommodate internally lit signs. The Commission thought that internally lit

signs might be included in CSD, SBD,PCD ifthe other commission members thought it

appropriate w(ho were not in attendance).

All parties present thought the code was a great improvement over the existing

code. Many thanks to all who helped in the process.

The sign code committee adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.