GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
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.
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.