Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 4/14/03

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION April 14, 2003 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Tim Riffle Members Absent: None. Citizens Present: Amanda Warner, Dan Rogers & Barbara Franks, Flo Hoffman, Amy Shock, Fred Wolf, Greg Ream, Alexander Mouton Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of March 10, 2003: Page 3, Change “Mr. Lucier” to Ms. Lucier. Line 3, change “typical house”: to barn style house Page 2, second line up, change to: Mr. Dorman said if it works out well for Ms. Hammond, it will be a permanent solution. We did not put a limit on it.

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

New Business: 

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street - Privacy Fence Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant wishes to (1) install a 6’ privacy fence in 12’ sections with 6x6 posts and copper caps. The pickets might be topped with spheres or arrows. In addition, (2) eventually, he wants to install a 4’x8’ spa located on west side of property, painted black inside, with stepping stones around. It would need to be covered to prevent uncontrolled access. It would be 3’ from property line, but because the spa is below grade and not more than 36” above grade, it is not held to the setback lines. Mr. Rogers added that he wants to install the pickets a little closer. He will set the fence between the trees and will plant flowering bushes next to the fence. What he likes about this fence is that both sides look like the finished side of the fence. Ms. Lucier asked how this fits with the landscaping agreements that were signed during the BZBA process to approve the variances for the garage, and Mr. Rogers said “Beautifully.” They have completed landscaping for one side but the other neighbor has not decided on landscaping. Mr. Dorman added that the agreement with the north neighbor would include a fence. Approval of BZBA was not contingent on the landscaping agreements or a fence being installed; still, this fence fits with their requirements. Ms. Lucier said she has been very aware that the back of the garage is not finished yet, and Mr. Rogers said that project has two years yet to completion but the siding will be up soon. She would like to see the garage completed before we approve anymore projects, and Mr. Salvage said the PC doesn’t have the authority to hold up additional projects. Ms. Lucier asked about the spa, and Mr. Rogers said the spa will be located so that it’s OK for a specific location. If the law changes on height, he would be too far out. He wants to complete the barn siding and won’t get to the spa for awhile. Mr. Rogers said the spa is to be recessed into the ground, with grass and sandstone around it. He will probably put in bushes sometime in the future. Mr. Burriss hopes for a look of consistency from the front. Mr. Burriss asked about where the end fencepost was to be and if it had a positive relationship to the house, and thought an appropriate motion would be for the landscaping to follow the lines of the house. Mr. Rogers said the termination spots are evenly spaced sections between the trees. He thought it would be more important to have evenly spaced posts. From the look of the house, Ms. Lucier thinks it would look very symmetrical with the parallel lines. Mr. Rogers stated that this is a very high quality fence and looks finished on both sides, although the more finished side will face the neighbor. It will match the trim of the house. Mr. Salvage asked about the tops of the picket and was told they would be either pointed or round. Mr. Salvage wants the Village Planner to review the detailed drawings when they are done. He does not think we have enough information before us to finalize the spa, and Mr. Rogers said it’s not a priority item.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-015 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THE PROPOSED FENCE WILL BE PAINTED A COLOR TO MATCH THE TRIM ON THE HOUSE; (2) THE PROPOSED FENCE WILL BE A 6’ FENCE WITH 2” X 2” PICKETS, THE TOPS OF WHICH ARE TO BE DETERMINED; (3) THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT FINAL DETAILS OF THE PICKET SPACING, PICKET TOPS, AND THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE FENCE SECTIONS TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION; AND (4) THE SPA WILL BE CONSIDERED AT A LATER TIME. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Rogers hopes to complete the fence by June.

Mound-Builders Real Estate, 130 East Broadway – Sidewalk Sign

 Since no one was present to answer questions, members decided to wait until the end of the meeting. Ms. Lucier had noted a computer in the window, showing real estate available and wondered whether that constituted a sign, possibly internally lit. Mr. Dorman will investigate this with the law director. With applicant still absent by the end of the meeting, Mr. Salvage said we will table this and consider it at the next meeting if the applicant agrees. Otherwise, we will reject it and the applicant will have to resubmit it.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #03-016 TO CONSIDER AT THE NEXT MEETING, IF THE APPLICANT AGREES, OTHERWISE THE APPLICATION IS REJECTED BECAUSE OF AN INADEQUATE DESCRIPTION OF DETAIL ON THE GRAPHICS. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

FD Wolf Associates, 134 East Broadway – Café umbrella signs

 Mr. Dorman stated that V.C. has passed a resolution on sidewalk cafes and now all outdoor cafés with umbrellas or furniture that advertise products, needs to secure a sign permit. Mr. Wolf will use the same umbrellas as he has used in the last few years. He needs variances for total number of canopy signs and for individual signs. Mr. Wolf said the Velvet Ice Cream lettering is on both sides of each umbrella. Victoria’s has always adhered to the rules, whereas other cafes have not. The style does not detract from anything on Broadway, and Victoria’s serves as the principal vendor for a Licking County company. Umbrellas did not need approval until this year; in the past a letter was written. Mr. Main said Village Council {V.C.} had a series of resolutions for other similar types of cafes. It was done so that it would coincide with the existing code because there were questions about the outside seating positions. Basically, what V.C. is trying to do is to have these types of things be reviewed by GPC to be sure they are appropriate for the area. Mr. Salvage said once you take the umbrellas in for the wintertime and the rules change, he is not sure what GPC has to do to make it OK. Variances are needed. He is not sure we can vary resolutions. He was not sure that these are canopy signs attached to an awning or a structure over an outdoor area. Are they inappropriate? Mr. Main thought they looked great. Ms. Lucier said then can anyone with maximum number of signs have advertising on an umbrella? She was concerned about precedent-setting. She thought these should be treated as signs. Mr. Dorman said the coffee shop had Coca- Cola umbrellas. New rules said they should not have advertising. Mr. Wolf said he adhered to the rules. Mr. Salvage said in Europe everyone has umbrellas with signs; it’s a look we are trying to acquire. Mr. Wolf said it’s rare that you get the high quality umbrella that we get from Velvet. Velvet promptly replaces worn umbrellas or repairs damaged ones. Mr. Parris thought we needed to be in agreement whether something is attractive or not. The resolution says these are temporary canopy signs. Mr. Dorman said we allow one canopy per business, and Mr. Salvage said this is for a variance. Mr. Parris noted it was good that the resolution gets reviewed every year. Any changes come before us so they are subject to review every year as to how their café looks. It’s up to us to come to some agreement regarding how they look. Mr. Salvage noted it is clear that the resolution authorizes the umbrellas, but he is not sure what it means by No. K, “Outside furnishings are not permitted to advertise commercial messages without sign review and approval by GPC.” Are we approving the Velvet part or the quality of the appearance? Mr. Parris wondered if the resolution is asking us to approve this sign or to measure it against the sign code. Mr. Dorman said if you don’t measure it against the sign code, what are you looking at? Mr. Parris said Item J. includes everything outdoors. Ms. Lucier thought we need an answer from the Law Director. It might make people more comfortable, thought Mr. Burriss, if one panel had a logo and the other said “Velvet” to cut down on the wordage. That would help us come closer to the sign code. Mr. Parris asked whether a drawing was submitted to V.C. with this request, and Mr. Main said No, it’s a housekeeping resolution. Mr. Parris has no problem with the variance, no problem with the umbrellas, but he does not know how this is to be treated under the sign code. Mr. Salvage thought it should be considered under the temporary signs section, and that does not limit the number of temporary signs. Mr. Burriss cautioned that we should be careful to be clear in stating that the graphics and the look meet with our approval so if anyone else comes to us and we don’t like the look of it, we could turn it down because we don’t like the graphics. He would be comfortable going ahead and approving this as we have discussed it this evening knowing that we will revisit is next year. He would be happy to table this and not ask Mr. Wolf to take down umbrellas until V.C. gives clarification. Mr. Wolf would like to put them out tomorrow. It was agreed to get clarification from V.C. if they want us to (1) review sign graphics or (2) have a full-fledged review under the sign code. Mr. Wolf is willing to table as long as he can open up tomorrow.

 MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #03-017 PENDING CLARIFICATION FROM VILLAGE COUNCIL, WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE APPLICANT. MR. WOLF WILL IS ALLOWED TO USE THE UMBRELLAS IN THE INTERIM. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Dorman will notify Mr. Wolf when he has a response from the Village Council.

Coldwell Banker King Thompson, 125 East Broadway – Sidewalk sign

 Mr. Dorman said the white, blue, and black plastic sidewalk sign is 7.65 square feet and will be out only out during business hours. He pointed out the sign in the window and on the valance of the canopy. Jerri Furniss showed the actual sign and said business hours are nine to five. It would be good if we could put out a sign so people know we are open. MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-021 WITH THE CLARIFICATION THAT THE SIGN IS THREE COLORS – BLUE, BLACK AND WHITE. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR. BURRISS VOTED NO.)

Taylor’s Drug Store, 200 East Broadway – Internally Illuminated Window Signs

 Mr. Dorman introduced the signs proposed: (1) Hallmark sign on westernmost window on Broadway, 4.5 square feet, internally lit, and (2) Family Pharmacy sign on Prospect side, 5.6 square feet, internally lit. Family Pharmacy is the wholesaling company for Taylor Drug’s generic products. Variances are needed for (1) internal illumination and (2) maximum number of signs per store front. Greg Ream said he has no control over what the companies give us for signs. He would not have chosen them, but they are required if he is to sell Hallmark cards. The signs are on all the time and hang from and are plugged into the ceiling. Mr. Main asked whether they could be put on timers, and Mr. Ream said maybe. Mr. Burriss asked whether they must be internally lit, for we have consistently denied them. Mr. Ream said people like to learn that we sell Hallmark cards and he would not consider unlit signs. Under the current regulations, Ms. Lucier can see nothing that would convince her to approve internally lit signs. Mr. Ream said, “If I leave the sign up, you cite me; if I take it down, Hallmark cites me.” It’s an important part of his business. GPC is tough on businesses and he feels each case should be evaluated on a more generic plan. Since he is on a corner lot, he feels he is still under the maximum for number of signs. Mr. Dorman said the sign package was approved under the old plan. Mr. Parris is not crazy about internally lit signs, but he understands that if you offer certain services from a national brand, you are required to give them a certain amount of square feet on a sign package. He would be agreeable to having timers, but we need to agree that these signs are not detrimental. Mr. Riffle asked whether they could be moved a little higher, since they would be at eye level and was told that they are as high up as they can be. He wondered if the contract said the signs must be in the front windows. Mr. Ream said that anywhere else would not please the companies, but he fears that people will not like the sign and if people don’t like it, he’s in trouble. Mr. Salvage suggested putting the signs up for awhile to see whether people complain; Ms. Lucier is not in favor of that. Mr. Burriss cannot approve internally illuminated signs. We have worked hard over the years to promote a sign package historically appropriate and consistent and these do not fall within that. Greg Ream spent a lot of time and money to design this building and it is handsome. There was a lot of thought given to the original sign package, but this proposal does not enhance historical purism and would set a precedent. 

Mr. Salvage asked if the store does or would exceed the allowed square footage for total sign area. Mr. Dorman said no. Mr. Salvage stated that hew has no problem with the number of signs as long as the total allowed square footage is not exceeded. Mr. Burriss asked whether the companies offered a choice of signs and was told No. Mr. Parris’s suggestion was to paint the information on the window instead of having the signs (an idea Ms. Lucier liked) and was told that would not work. Mr. Salvage asked whether they could be spotlighted and Mr. Ream said no because that wouldn’t do much good and they are sealed. Mr. Salvage has no problem with the number of signs and thinks the Family Pharmacy sign could be unlit. The Hallmark sign does not show up if unlit. Mr. Ream then suggested hanging the signs on the inside window in the vestibule. Both companies require internal illumination. The hardest part of his job is keeping the vendors happy. Mr. Parris opened the discussion re criteria for number of signs by saying they have a unique building, not like any other. Mr. Parris continued by grouping all five criteria together since they all would have similar applications:

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. 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. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 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. . 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. 

With the scale of the business, it’s hard to find another like it. Smaller buildings with multiple tenants have a lot of signs, and Mr. Parris did not think we would be giving special privilege for number of signs. He believes applicant is well within his rights.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNS PER STOREFRONT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Likewise, Mr. Parris used the same criteria to consider the internally lit variance: 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. Again, we have a large building and these signs are only 10.1 square feet, out of a possible total of 300 square feet, so in proportion to the building the internally illuminated area would be very small. 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. Unless I am mistaken, we have approved internally illuminated sign for the Certified station. Others said this was under the old code. 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. Considering the scale of the business and size of the site in relation to the amount of store front, he does not think any other business has anywhere near this much store front. 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. It would not.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNS. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR. BURRISS AND MS. LUCIER VOTED NO).

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-023 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNS WILL NOT BE ILLUMINATED FROM THE HOURS OF 10 P.M. TO 6 A.M., AND THAT THEY WILL BE PLACED AS HIGH IN THE WINDOW AS POSSIBLE. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION PASSED BY MAJORITY (MR. BURRISS AND MS. LUCIER VOTING NO).

Amanda Warner, 204 South Main Street – Change of Use

 The applicant wants to change the use on the second floor from residential to commercial for a tutor and learning center. Most of the clients would be dropped off. Ms. Warner added that she is not applying for a sign at the present time.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-024. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Historical Society, Various Locations – Temporary Signs Speaking for the Historical Society, Flo Hoffman is requesting advertising signs at various locations for local performances of “Voices,” celebrating Ohio’s Bicentennial. It will be acted by local actors and sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Ohio Humanities Council, as well as Granville’s Bicentennial Commission. The signs will be up for one week prior to June 6. The signage includes (1) banner over Broadway; (2) sandwich boards on both sides of Broadway, near IGA, and Cherry Street light; and (3) directional signs at Mulberry/Broadway and Cherry/Broadway.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-025, AND TO ALLOW THE VILLAGE PLANNERTO APPROVE THE SIGN GRAPHICS. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Amy Shock, 120 East Broadway – Canopy & Window Signs

 Mr. Dorman said the new tenant in the old Cunard’s space wishes (1) a canopy using Cunard’s old canopy with her logo added to the valance, and (2) window signs at the bottom of both bay windows.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-026 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Alexander & Jackie Mouton, 339 West Elm Street – Picket & Privacy Fences

 The applicants are requesting a 42” picket fence along the top of the hill on the east, continuing to the south end of the house, for the children’s safety. They also wish to install a 60”-72” privacy fence starting alongside the neighbor’s fence on the east and around south side to top of hill to enclose back yard Mr. Mouton said the 42” fence will be white and the privacy fence will be weathered with the nice side outside. A garden outside with flowering plants will be planted inside the fencing. Mr. Burriss warned him of drainage problems, and the applicant is aware of them and they would not interfere with the fencing. Mr. Salvage said we have tried to discourage weathered fencing because it does not weather attractively in our climate. Mr. Parris added that unless the fence is made out of cedar which has had a bleaching agent, it will not get a nice natural gray. You may want to consider putting a clear coat of something on it because the bottom third will turn black. Mr. Mouton said he would agree to that. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-027 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE COLOR OF THE PICKET FENCE WILL BE WHITE; AND (2) THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THE SELECTED FINISH FOR THE PRIVACY FENCE TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR FINAL APPROVAL. MR BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,D,E,F,G,H AND I 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 APRIL 11, 2003. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 10:00 p.m. Next Meetings: April 28 and May 5

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.