GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2003 Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle Members Absent: Richard Salvage (Chair) Citizens Present: Pam Powell, Kevin Foster, Craig Fottor, Drew McFarland, Greg Ross, Steve West, Dana West Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of September 22, 2003: On the last paragraph, correct spelling of Mr. Riffle’s name. MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Kevin Foster, 351 North Granger Street - Addition Mr. Strayer stated that this is for a residence addition, which would replace the front porch, currently in poor condition. The new porch will have 4 posts on east and west, and the proposed materials are here before you. The square footage will be increased from 1200 to 2200. Mr. Foster added that it will be longer and a few feet wider than the present structure. Ms. Lucier asked how similar the new windows would be to the existing ones and was told that they are more rounded on the porch. The plan is to use double-hung windows throughout for economic reasons. Windows will be consistent. They are replacing gutter and downspouts. The siding will be 6” clapboard. The antenna will be removed. Mr. Burris asked about the different heights of the windows and Mr. Foster said they are unaligned because of the low ceilings. The new part will have a full second floor. Mr. Main asked about the location of detached garage and driveway and was told they are not sure yet. Mr. Foster would like to have the access from Spellman Street, but there are two trees he is reluctant to remove. Windows were discussed further and it was suggested to repeat the arched windows in the front. Mr. Burris thought it was OK to have different windows in the front and it would be a dishonor to completely remove the arched windows. Mr. Foster described the posts on the porch and explained the window trim, which is heavier than what is there now. He wasn’t sure he could buy more, but Mr. Riffle and Mr. Parris told him where it could be found.
MS LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE 03-139 WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT (1) FOUR FIRST FLOOR WINDOWS ON NORTH AND EAST SIDES OR ORIGINAL PART OF THE HOUSE WILL BE CLOSE TO WHAT IS PLANNED; (2) FINAL PLANS FOR LENTEL DETAILS ARE TO BE SHOWN TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Prudential Office, 142 East Broadway – sidewalk sign Mr. Strayer said the applicant did not provide detail of the sign, but it will be exactly like the one at Reader’s Garden. The applicant is not here tonight to answer questions so members chose to table it.
MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO TABLE 03-142 UNTIL THE APPLICANT CAN BE PRESENT AND CAN SHOW THE PROPOSED SIGN. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
W.W. Bancroft, 230 East Broadway – Sign Mr. Strayer said the application is for a projecting sign with two tags off the front porch, using and repainting the former Crown and Cushion sign. The tags are considered part of the projecting sign, and with the tags, it is still within the maximum 10 square feet. Drew McFarland added that they can make the sign either straight or tapered. Mr. Burriss noted that the Crown and Cushion sign had a nice border, and he would like to see this added. The sign would feel more finished with a border. Pam Powell said that could be done, in either red or black. Mr. Strayer will review final sign design. Ms. Lucier preferred the same font for all signs for the building. MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-144 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT (1) IT HAVE A BORDER AND THAT (2) APPLICANT WILL RUN FINAL DESIGN BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Drew McFarland, 230 East Broadway – Sign The application is for a second projecting sign on the same building as the previous application. Only one projecting sign is allowed on a building, and the sign is too high to fall within the code, so two variances would be required. The actual sign formerly hung from the building down the street where Drew McFarland had his law office. He said it will hang off the second floor bay window over the porch roof and project 30”. It’s two- sided and heavy, so it cannot swing. He has used the Kussmaul-designed sign since 1989 and is proposing this in lieu of window lettering. Mr. Burris asked whether he could hang it inside the bay window and Mr. McFarland said he would rather not. It would not be visible behind the blinds. Mr. Parris noted we just approved the sign for W.W. Bancroft, which is completely different in graphics and style, but Mr. McFarland said it shouldn’t matter because his is on the second floor. Mr. Burris noted that we have tried to follow guidelines of the Master Plan, and the second floor office use is what was recommended for downtown. Old photographs show many businesses on the second floor. He thought the sign bracket should have some reference to the center bar of the window, and also you need to consider how it will look from inside. Mr. McFarland was picturing it in the lower part of the window so as not to block the view. Mr. Riffle does not like the two signs being so different. Mr. McFarland thought changing the Crown and Cushion sign would be cost prohibitive, and he already has a sign he likes. It was approved by GPC for a block away. Mr. Burris suggested adapting the Crown and Cushion sign to appear more similar to the McFarland sign. Fonts, colors, and materials should be the same. Changing it would mean amending the previous application. Ms. Lucier is concerned about granting variances for a second projecting sign with height deviation because it opens up the possibility of others doing the same thing up and down the street. Guidelines should be followed. Mr. Parris referred to variances in 1147, and according to the code we do not have to apply every one of these criteria to the argument, but at least one. The problem is that a sign puts itself into a position of needing a variance, but we need to give reasons. Mr. McFarland said they are not using up the other two signs allowed. He cannot really convert his sign to a wall sign. It’s a very sedate, heavy, weathered redwood sign. Mr. Paris said we have to be in a position where someone is willing to propose a variance. If no one will sponsor it, there’s nowhere for it to go. No member has a problem with the actual sign, but no one would come forward to support it. Ms. Lucier finds nothing in the criteria for the second projecting sign. Mr. Burris would rather do more research on other projecting signs in the village. He noted that the two signs are on different planes. This is somewhat similar to a projecting sign and an awning sign on the same building.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TABLE 03-144. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session: Granville IGA
Greg Ross introduced Steve West, Designer, and said they want to square off the building and remodel the entire interior with a small addition on the back. Mr. Burriss noted that on the landscape and parking plan we created a central allee for a different configuration, which went into the building rather than a blank wall. He would prefer to see the allee as a central feature with islands and trees uniting the lot and the store in a happy celebration. A building in a parking lot needs a better dialog. Mr. West described the windows and colors. There will be a second floor office. On the back side a trash compactor will sit beside the cardboard compactor and freezer. Boxes and Bows wants space back there too, and the applicant is willing to listen to GPC’s suggested materials. Mr. Parris does not want the mechanicals to show from the front, and Mr. Wesson said they will be hidden by the roof. Mr. Ross stated that the IGA name will have to change because their supplier went bankrupt. New logos will be needed, and rather than replacing the awning with the logo there presently, he would like to paint out the name. Later they will address a new sign package for the area. Finding of Fact: MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A AND C UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF OCTOBER 10, 2003. MS LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 9:30 p.m. Next Meetings: October 27 and November 10 Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen