GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION October 28, 2002 Amended Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: None Citizens Present: Sharon Sellitto, Jonathan Glance Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of October 15, 2002: Page 3, following “THE SIGN; “Mr. Burriss reminded him that we like the light….”
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS MODIFIED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Phillip Markwood Architects, 102 East Broadway – Temporary Contractor’s Sign
Mr. Dorman said the application is for a temporary sign for the duration of the east addition construction of the church. The Plexiglas sign would be a 10 1/2' sq.ft. white sign with black letters and graphics, 5’ above grade and located on the fence. Mr. Dorman felt they would not need any variances. Mr. Parris questioned (in 1189.01 of the sign code) whether only one sign is allowed per contractors or one sign per site. Mr. Dorman said that although we try to get all contractors onto one sign, he did not think the other sign would be of issue. Technically, he thought Mr. Parris was correct and if the GPC wants to approve the sign, a variance would be necessary. Jonathan Glance said the contractor put up a sign and the architect was not consulted on it. They asked Miles Waggoner if they would put up a single sign next to the contractor sign, but they were not interested, so that was out of the church’s hands. Mr. Salvage said we forced the school district to use one sign and the Presbyterian Church to use one sign. He would have a hard time agreeing to a second sign. Mr. Burriss noted there is a lot of blank space on the approved sign and he thinks they should be combined. The architect sign could be placed within that area nicely. If Kokosing could move their logo up or over in a new sign, there would be plenty of room for the architect’s sign. Mr. Parris asked what we could do to facilitate conversation between the parties. Mr. Glance thought their Plexiglas sign could be added to the other sign. Mr. Parris asked if Mr. Dorman could talk to the interested parties at the church. Mr. Burriss wondered whether each new contractor will want his name on a sign, but Mr. Glance said only Corna Kokosing will be on the sign and not the subcontractors.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-139 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT THE APPLICANT’S SIGN WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE EXISTING GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S SIGN OR A TOTALLY NEW SIGN, THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF WHICH WILL NOT INCREASE; AND 2) THAT ALL THE INTERESTED PARTIES WILL GET FINAL APPROVAL OF THE GRAPHICS AND LAYOUT FROM THE VILLAGE PLANNER. THE PLANNING COMMISSION URGES ALL THREE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS TO BE COOPERATIVE IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS AND CONFORMING TO OUR SIGN CODE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street – Fence Modification
Mr. Dorman said this is the second modification to a fence approved in 2000. The first modification was approved in June last year to modify the approval to put up a 35’x79’ fence enclosure. The fence was different from the one originally approved. It went up with bigger dimensions than what we approved. Mr. Dorman asked her to come back for approval for what was actually put up in the yard. Ms. Sellitto said she and the contractor had discussed this, but then when she returned from out of town, he had gone the additional distance with the posts and she proceeded to attach the pickets without a modification.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THIS IS A MINOR MODIFICATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE A MINOR MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION #00-088 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Markwood) AND ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Sellitto), AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF OCTOBER 25. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ms. Lucier: Tonight’s meeting reminded me of an issue we have talked about before, because it happens so often, and that is people go ahead and do whatever and then come back to us for an approval after the fact. I wonder if we could propose something to the Council or if it’s even necessary to do it that way; that there be some penalty for those who do this.
Mr. Parris: It puts us in a position; I didn’t say much because it’s like what am I supposed to do, it’s already built; what am I going to do, tell them to take it down?
Mr. Dorman: If something comes to you after it’s built you have to analyze it based on the code. If you don’t find it meets the standards of the code, we absolutely have the authority to tell them to take it down.
Mr. Parris: I think the reason that so many of these are coming to us is because someone is actually going out there now and looking at what’s being built; however this is frustrating for us because its already built.
Mr. Dorman: Those who do this are violating the zoning code by violating their permit, so I could cite them.
Ms. Lucier: I would feel good if you did that.
Mr. Salvage: If you cite them what does that do?
Mr. Dorman: It would send them to Mayor’s Court, where they would go in front of the Mayor or Magistrate and likely be fined.
Mr. Salvage: That’s a good idea, but I would like to put something on the application that states that applicants who modify approved plans without proper approvals will be issued a citation. I would ask that Seth draft something and also run it by the Law Director as soon as possible.
Adjournment: 7:55 p.m. Next Meetings: November 13 and November 25
Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen