Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 1/13/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION January 13, 2003 Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: Richard Main Citizens Present: Steve Mershon, Walt Denny, Mary & Mark Milligan, Tim Riffle, Mike Frazier, Art Chonko, Seth Patton, Chuck Peterson, Ned Roberts, Evelyne and Helmut Poelzing Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of November 13, 2002: Page 4, Change Mary Mulligan to Mary Milligan. MR. PARRIS MOVED TO ADOPT THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of December 9: Page 3, ¾ of the way down, change to ”Mr. Parris feels we should have a discussion, for how we interpret the sign code is how we would go in the future and why.” MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business: 

Steve Mershon, 110 East Elm Street - Signs Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant wishes to (1) add a panel to the existing ground sign, to be 32”x15”, double sided, and colors to be black and navy on a white background. A pair of directional signs would be placed at the bottom of the stairs and outside Mr. Mershon’s office door. All signs are consistent with other tenant signs. A variance is necessary for number of signs, but Mr. Salvage reminded the group that another tenant received a variance for the same signage as Mr. Mershon is requesting. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether the white would be as bright as that in the picture and was told the white could be softened. 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. Yes, special conditions exist. 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. Yes, a literal interpretation would deprive applicant of his rights. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. This is obvious. 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. .It would not confer undue privilege. 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. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR THE SIGN PACKAGE FOR APPLICATION #02-162, BASED UPON OUR REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE UNDER THE CODE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-162 AS PRESENTED. MR.BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Evelyne Poelzing, 126 West Elm Street – Convert Barn into One-Car Garage

 Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant wishes to convert the barn into a one-car garage. The outside would remain the same except for the single door on the south side. The floor would be cemented with apron, and the existing concrete driveway would be extended with gravel. A short picket fence would be installed around the turn- around of the driveway. Ned Roberts explained the siding they have planned with a board and batten look for the front. The door would be paneled and they could stick battens on the door instead of having it flush. Mr. Parris asked if there is a way they could dress it down with laminations or something to make it look less like a door. Ms. Poelzing said the gray color will blend in with the existing color scheme. Mr. Burriss is concerned with the door’s rectangular shape with rounded tops. He recommended that the applicants study Steve Mershon’s door, which we worked hard on. It has a flat horizontal door beyond which we put a plywood door with framing and window. We need to know exactly what the final door will look like. Ned Roberts said it would be a metal door close to arches, with flush panels with batten strips. It is far back on the lot Mr. Burriss asked about a horizontal door with rough plywood on top, and Ms. Poelzing said the metal door is a matter of maintenance. The rest of the barn is wood and naturally aged, and Mr. Burris is concerned about maintaining the subtlety and character of the barn. He is not very excited about a panel. Mr. Burriss knows Ned Roberts will arrange for drainage so there will not be any rotting. The applicants have done good work on the front of the house and he would like to make this plan consistent with that. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked that since you have to take off the board and battens anyway, could you apply that to the front of the metal door, but was told that would be too heavy a door. Ms. Poelzing said the big pine tree would hide the garage Mr. Parris has no objection to the type of door if it can be colored or textured to give the same flavor as the barn. It is not very visible from the street. Mr. Salvage would not like to see a bright white door there. Ned Roberts said they could go with a flush door and texture can be put on it. 

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-159 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE FINISH OF THE FLAT STEEL GARAGE DOOR IS SUBMITTED TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND COMMISSIONER BURRISS FOR FINAL APPROVAL; AND (2) THAT THE FENCE MATERIAL IS TO BE CEDAR. 

Mark Milligan, 212 East Elm Street – Construct Two-Car Garage

 Mr. Dorman said the application is to build a 1 ½ story garage with storage at the top and (2) a pergola will tie into the existing landscaping. A variance is needed for the rear setback. Colors will match the house. Ms. Lucier asked about the window details, and Mr. Burriss is comfortable with the plan. Probably the light fixtures are to be determined, and that should be a condition. She also asked whether the tree would have to come down Mr. Milligan said the further they move the garage to the house, the more they block the neighbor’s view. The Westbrook’s tree is a buffer Mr. Burriss said it’s one of our wonderful, small Village lots, and in order for them to have any consistency with garden space, the proposed placement of it makes sense. To put the garage closer to the house would make an imposition to the house. Mr. Burriss would like Mr. Dorman to look at final plans for downspouts and for final lighting fixtures. MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-001 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT THE LIGHT FIXTURES FOR FINAL APPROVAL BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER; AND (2) THAT THE SIDING AND DOORS WILL BE WHITE TO MATCH THE BACK PORTION OF THE HOUSE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Denison University – Refigure a Portion of Burg Street

 Art Chonko showed plans to change the road to Burg Street They have changed the road behind Mitchell and they will have a new connector road between the two new buildings and the parking garage. The third component is to get around campus without leaving campus. They will remove parking and put it in the garage. The roads will be two-way roads all around campus, and they plan to start in the spring. For the main intersection at Burg and Thresher, they will push Burg toward Thresher to allow a two-way road around Shorney and maintain parking on Burg. The college is working with the Village on the parking situation, since they share the Burg parking lot. He said there may be footpaths installed. Mr. Burriss asked about a retention wall and was told it might be riprap or a wall. He thought entryway gate posts would be nice. Mr. Burriss said you also need landscaping to separate the two roads, and Mr. Chonko said they have not gotten that far yet. Mr. Burriss is also concerned about headlights shining into neighboring houses. Mr. Chonko said they will use Granville style lighting Mr. Salvage recommended guardrails and Mr. Chonko thought the guardrails might be similar to the post and beam posts at the little bridge near the golf course. Mr. Parris said the more traffic you can get off Burg Street, the safer it will be. 

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,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 JANUARY 8, 2003. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Business: Sidewalk Signs. Mr. Dorman said the maximum number of signs per storefront is 4, but what about the rear of a store? A sidewalk sign is an individual sign and should be counted in the total number of signs. Mr. Wilkenfeld thought in some places you can’t walk two abreast for all the signs, and Mr. Dorman said such signs must not be an obstruction. Mr. Burriss would like to discourage any more sidewalk signs. Regarding definition of “storefront,” Mr. Salvage said sometimes we give permission for signs in the rear and how should that be interpreted. Mr. Dorman said the logical way to interpret storefront is as a business. We are not going to be able to write a perfect code, thought Mr. Parris, and a lot of this is subject to interpretation. If we are going to change the way we interpret, we need to agree. Variances are always possible. Mr. Wilkenfeld said anything that announces a store is a sign regardless if it’s in the back. Sometimes, as in the Bakery, directional signs are necessary. Mr. Salvage thought a storefront is not a business; it is the front of a store. Nor is an alley a storefront. But Mr. Wilkenfeld said directional signs for deliveries should be approved by the Village Planner In the case of a building with multiple tenants, each tenant is a separate store front, added Mr. Parris. Mr. Dorman asked if is important to limit the total number of signs for a business and was told yes and Mr. Parris said you always nave a variance option. The code tries to balance the business as well as how we want the village to look. We need to agree on what is a variance situation and what is not. Mr. Salvage asked whether we need to establish a definition of storefront and was told yes. For a business on a corner lot, Mr. Salvage said we decided to give them additional square footage but no additional signs. To sum up: Storefront signs are at the primary entrance of the business. Informational signs, such as Visa or MasterCard, should be excluded from the maximum count. Such signs are to be determined by GPC upon application. Mr. Dorman will draft an amendment that would define informational signs. Be flexible on number of informational signs. Sidewalk signs are included in the total number of signs per business.

Adjournment: 9:10 p.m. Next Meetings: January 27 and February 10

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.