GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION December 9, 2002 Amended Minutes
Members Present: Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: Jack Burriss Citizens Present: Susan & Doug Rockwell, Bernardita Llanos, Chuck & Lisa Whitman, Dennis Cauchon, Barb Hammond, Kirsten Pape Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of November 13, 2002: Postponed until next meeting.
Susan and Doug Rockwell, 129 West Broadway – Fence and Arbor Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants wish to install a western wood cedar fence and arbor with 2’ sections of fencing between garage and house. It will be 15’ long, and the finished side will face the street. No variances are necessary. Mr. Rockwell said the fence and arbor will be stained white to match picket fence in the back. Ms. Rockwell added that there will be a gate. A previous fence was taken down to allow room for a patio. The fence will have a moon gate and two fence sections and will be 5’ tall at its highest point. MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-151 AS PRESENTED. MR.WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Bernardita Llanos, 222 South Prospect Street – Fence
Mr. Dorman stated that the application is to install two sections of fence, 3’6” tall. One would be 21’ long and the other 24’ long. No variances are needed. Kirsten Pape showed drawings and showed where the fence and parking and landscaping would be located. The two-board fence will be 3’6” high. She explained that it will be a pressure treated natural color and will weather for a year. Mr. Parris thought that pressure treated would not lend itself to become more attractive with age, whereas cedar will weather. Ms. Pape said they could put in a gray pigment.
MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-152 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE FENCE BE STAINED A COLOR APPROPRIATE TO THE HOUSE, WITH A YEAR TO STAIN IT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Chuck Whitman, 130 North Prospect Street – Change of Use
Mr. Dorman said the application is to change the use from a hair salon to a frozen custard shop. The category will change from A, “Service,” to D, “Food, beverage and drugs.” Mr. Whitman added that the frozen custard is a Midwestern product, about 10% butterfat with egg and honey added. There will be no inside seating and will also sell hot dogs, barbecue, and soda. Columbus has a small chain of frozen custard shops. The Whitmans have been in the food service business 21 years and have purchased a home here. The frozen custard is made fresh daily.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-154 FOR A CHANGE OF USE AS PRESENTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Chuck Whitman, 130 North Prospect Street – Window and Sidewalk Signs
For the above-noted business, two signs are requested: (1) 2’ x 4’ wooden sidewalk sign with green, red, and white letters. This sign will have a removable insert for daily featured flavors. It will only be outside when store is open. (2) Window Sign 22”x46”, with colors to match those on the awning. He did not know yet whether it would be painted or vinyl. Mr. Salvage said we don’t have a preference, but a painted sign would last longer. Usually a sign company will give a sign rendering with colors, and he would like Mr. Dorman to take a look at it. Colors on both signs will match each other and the awning. Looking at the store hours, Mr. Dorman asked if that could be an insert in case they change, and Mr. Whitman said sure.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-155 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT ONCE THE APPLICANT HAS RENDERINGS FROM A SIGN CONTRACTOR, HE WILL SHOW IT TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway – Shed Remodeling
The application is for two window additions to convert the potting shed into living space. He also wants to build a firewood shed. One stipulation is that it should not be used as living space for a second family. Dennis Cauchon said this space would be for an office or a play place for his kids. It will have no plumbing. Mr. Parris asked about the color of the woodshed and was told it would have cedar shingles on top and the color will match the house. He wants to change windows to 4 over 4, double hung and asks for a little flexibility. They will be roughly the same size, but all three windows will match. He is only replacing those already there and one new window on the side. Windows on ends will match. The porch is not part of this application. Mr. Salvage wants a rendering at such time that the porch is desired.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-158 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE 3 WINDOWS TO BE REPLACED ON THE REAR OF THE POTTING SHED BE MATCHING WINDOWS; (2) THAT THE CASEMENT WINDOW TO BE ADDED TO ONE END WILL MATCH AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO THE CASEMENT WINDOW ON THE OTHER END OF THE STRUCTURE; (3) THAT THE FIREWOOD SHED WILL EITHER BE WEATHERED CEDAR OR PAINTED TO MATCH THE COLOR OF THE POTTING SHED; AND (4) THAT THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THERE WILL BE NO PLUMBING IN THE STRUCTURE AND WILL NOT BE USED AS LIVING SPACE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Barb Hammond, 123 East Broadway – Window Signs and Sidewalk Sign
Mr. Dorman said this is a modification to add a 2x4 plastic sidewalk sign and a pair of window signs to the previous canopy sign application. There will be two identical 20”x9” signs, one on either side of the door, with vinyl cut letters. She will need a variance for the number of signs, since 4 are allowed, and she has 5: Canopy front, Canopy on rear, window sign to the right, window sign to the left, and sidewalk sign. Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that the signs are small and tasteful. Mr. Parris asked whether we normally consider the sidewalk sign as part of the building signage or as a separate issue. Mr. Dorman said 4 signs per storefront are allowed, and in his opinion it’s an individual sign and contributes to the signage for the store. Mr. Wilkenfeld does not feel comfortable in this situation, and Mr. Parris questions why now we are including sidewalk signs as part of the building signage since we have not done this before. Mr. Dorman stated that one obstacle is interpretation of the code. Understandings of the code change, and he does not think it became an issue of variance but we did count the sidewalk sign at the bakery. Mr. Parris feels we should have a discussion to decide if changing to the way you are talking (interpreting the sign code) is the way we need to go in the future and why. Mr. Dorman said zoning officials have to decide what the intention of the code is. The sidewalk sign is not a permanent sign but only open when the store is open, Mr. Wilkenfeld added, so how do you categorize it? Mr. Salvage thought we should find this application in compliance. Ms. Hammond said the sign would be located close to the building so as not to impede pedestrian traffic. Mr. Dorman asked whether in the future the sidewalk sign would be changed to omit “Now Open” and the hours. Any changes will have to return to GPC. She said the letters are magnetic and easily changed. Ms. Lucier does not think a sidewalk sign is even needed, since people know about it, and Ms. Hammond said at certain times of the day it can look like they are not open and she especially wants it present on Sundays.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO FIND APPLICATION #02-124M2 TO BE A MINOR MODIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL PERMIT. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-124M2 AS PRESENTED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Parris wants the sidewalk sign interpretation issue added to the agenda of a short future meeting.
Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A,B,C,D,E UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF DECEMBER 5. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8:15 p.m. Next Meetings: January 13 and 27
Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen