Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 11/25/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION November 25, 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: Ted Handel, John Minsker, Walt Denny, Tim Riffle, Miles Waggoner, Mary Milligan Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of October 28, 2002: Mr. Dorman added comments from the tape onto Page 3 for clarity.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of November 13, 2002: Page 3, Line 12, after “batten strips,” add for the garage door.

 Page 4, in Paragraph (2), Mr. Salvage asked Mr. Dorman to look into whether we could record restrictions that would be delivered to anyone when they buy a new house. They should know they are buying in a historic district.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business: 

Mound City Products, 120 Westgate Drive – Canopy Sign Mr. Dorman explained that the previous ground sign has been taken down, and the applicant wants approval for a canopy sign on the valance already installed. A variance is necessary for size of the canopy sign, which is ca. 12.7 sq.ft. and 6’ is maximum. Ted Handel said the letters are 8.7” high and the length is ca. 17.’5”. Letters are light beige on the brown, light green and beige canopy. Ms. Lucier asked if there is a reason why the sign was installed before approval was granted, and Mr. Handel said they talked and when he returned back from a trip, the awning was up, so he got a letter from the Village Planner. Mr. Main had gone to look at it and he would support the variance in that this building is pretty far from the street, and a smaller sign would hardly be visible from the road. Mr. Wilkenfeld added that there is not much traffic on Westgate. When Ms. Lucier looked at it, it did not seem overly large. She would suggest a compromise of removing the two logos to make it smaller. Mr. Salvage said if this was a wall sign, they would be entitled to have 66 sq.ft. Mr. Parris could argue for a variance based on the fact there is no other wall sign. He would rather see an awning sign than a big plastic sheet. 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. N/A 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. N/A C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. N/A 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. .Mr. Parris stated that undue privilege is not conferred if you consider that we have a 10.6 sq.ft. sign which is the only sign identifying that building and the fact that the applicant could be granted a much larger wall sign. 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. Salvage asked if they are going to install a wall sign, and the answer was No, only if they get a tenant for upstairs.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE A VARIANCE ON APPLICATION #02-150 BASED ON SECTIONS 1147.03 (D) AND (E) OF THE ZONING CODE. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-150 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THIS WILL BE THE ONLY SIGN FOR MOUND CITY PRODUCTS ON THE FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Methodist Church – Material and Color Mr. Dorman noted that the previous approved approval was conditioned on final approval of the exterior lighting package and color for stucco.

 Materials: Miles Waggoner showed the stucco sample material and color for east and south elevations. He described how decorative tile will be used. He said it is very difficult to match colors and materials exactly so they are distinguishing the old from the new to make a nice contrast. John Minsker added it’s just enough of a contrast to make a big difference. The original was built in 1924. Mr. Burriss asked for details on window colors and was told it would be a dark bronze as a contrast with the stucco. It is not trim work per se.

Lighting: John Minsker showed the actual lighting fixture to be used with the exception that it will be fluorescent rather than incandescent. It will be painted bronze to match the window bronze. There are two located on each side of the Broadway window, the color is satin bronze SB2. The four lights on Linden are on each side of the window, one lighting the elevator entrance, and one on the north. On the Main Street elevation they have two, located on each side of the posts that match those on the opposite side. One light will be on the Educational Building. At present there are two wrought iron lights on the Broadway entrance. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked if they would consider lighting the front from the ground rather than the wall, and the answer was No. Mr. Waggoner said they would put the lights on a timer to go off after midnight. Mr. Burriss asked about the downspouts, and the men did not know the color to be used but thought it would be about the same as the window frames. There should be some relationship and coordination between them, stated Mr. Burriss. Mr. Salvage wondered whether the lights could be dark bronze also, and Mr. Parris did not think that they have to match as long as it is in the same color family. Mr. Wilkenfeld was concerned that the new part is going to be lit up and seen more than the old part, and that is why he thought of highlighting. John Minsker said they had thought of lighting these two windows from inside and asked whether Mr. Wilkenfeld would be more comfortable with lights on the Broadway side and Mr. Wilkenfeld would be. It is an especially beautiful building and you really want to be looking at those stained glass windows. He asked. “If you put all these lights on the new building and you think that is too much, would you consider removing some of them?” John Minsker said they match lights inside. Mr. Parris liked the idea of lighting the alley and thinks there is enough distinction between the old building and the educational building. They are only putting one light there. They might want to consider 2 rather than 4 on the front side. Mr. Minsker asked that since there is no sidewalk there, would you be comfortable with no lights. And Mr. Wilkenfeld would like to see the lights off there. Mr. Waggoner would be willing to give up the 4 lights on the front. Mr. Parris stated they could be scaled down to 2. Mr. Waggoner would rather not put on any so they are highlighting the back to the parking lot. Mr. Burriss would be comfortable with Mr. Dorman approving colors of lighting fixtures. We need sample of downspouts and window trim to see how it works with the lights. Colors need to be in the same family. The applicants agreed to remove 4 lights off the front façade.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE LIGHTING AND WALL DETAILS FOR APPLICATION #01-049: 1) THE STUCCO COLOR AND TEXTURE WILL BE AS PER SAMPLES PROVIDED AT THIS MEETING; AND 2) THE LIGHT FIXTURES WILL BE BY VISTA LIGHTING. THE PATTERN AS PER THE EXHIBIT PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT USING TWO (2) 13 WATT FLOURESCENT BULBS AND THE COLOR BEING SATIN BRONZE. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO AGREEING TO REMOVE THE FOUR (4) LIGHT FIXTURES FROM THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF THE NEW ADDITION TO THE BUILDING. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: Mark Milligan, 212 East Elm St. – Garage

 Mary Milligan stated that her husband had a heart attack, so Tim Riffle will present the proposed application. He said they want a two-car 24’x28’ 1½ story garage for storage. They want to keep as much green space as possible and lot coverage would be about 35%. It will have a metal roof, Dutch lap siding, and a concrete driveway. It is 1’ from the rear property line. A pergola will help shield the garage, and there is a fence and big shrubs. Ms. Lucier thinks it would be an attractive structure but it does not seem to have much to do with the way the house looks. Mr. Burriss had similar concerns; the oval window is a beautiful one but it’s of a more refined vocabulary than what could be found on the house. For the finials there are lots of examples of garages not matching houses. Mr. Ripple said right across the alley is a garage that was moved and it does not fit. Mr. Burriss said it does not have to match exactly but should be similar. Mr. Wilkenfeld likes the way the garage looks on the alley, which is one of the nicest parts of the village, and he hopes the applicant “will not mess up.” Mr. Ripple said the garage doors may change slightly. This is an overhead door similar to those at Monomoy. They have not thought of colors, but Mrs. Milligan thought it would match the back shed. They had not thought of a textured driveway. Mr. Parris said that given the look of the alley and the look of the garage, if they could go with textured concrete with a color in it, it would really complement what you are doing along the alley. Mr. Burriss said if you are going to do any lighting, there may be a couple of lights; we will need to look at them. (And gutters and downspouts.) 

Finding of Fact:

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Mound City) AND ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Methodist Church), AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF NOVEMBER 22. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8:37 p.m. Next Meetings: December 9. We will tentatively cancel the meeting on December 23. 

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

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.