Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 7/26/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 26, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair),  Tim Riffle
Members Absent:  Carl Wilkenfeld
Visitors Present:  Gerald Martin,   Barb Hammond, Patty Urbatis, Ben Rader, Tom McCullough
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of July 12, 2004:   MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED; MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Gerald Martin, 116 East Broadway - Renovations
IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO REMOVE THIS APPLICATION FROM THE TABLE.

 Mr. Strayer said the last time there were concerns:  (1) signs and (2) building on the shared wall along the side of the building.  We went back to the Village and looked but were unable to find the resolution so he will get that to you at another time.  He asked the Law Director for his advice. The applicant has waived the 45-day time limit for our decision. 
Mr. Parris thought it would be a question of whether the Village entered into agreement with the person who owns the land or to the deed itself.  Mr. Strayer will check records from 1979 to find it.  Mr. Martin has no such record in his deed.
 Mr. Parris did not want to make architectural recommendations, but any recommendations we have made should be considered.   This is a unique business district and we need to consider not just this building but how all the building get tied together. 
 We should review the criteria for AROD:

(a) Is it stylistically compatible  with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?

Mr. Burriss said this area has been less reflective of other buildings downtown. In the early 1900's much of the detail was removed from that building, and some of the efforts proposed here bring back some of that richness of detail.  We have a ways to go to discuss the details, but this does enrich the building and make it more in historical character.  He had concerns of some of the uses of the balcony; historically, there have been several second-floor balconies in Granville and they have been good spaces.  There needs to be great effort toward monitoring the use of that space. 
Mr. Parris could find two other examples, above the jeweler's and the Buxton Inn, and this plan adds details to a big mass, and he wants to be sure it blends with the rest of the block. Not knowing what the usage will be, we cannot make a decision on a zoning matter with an eye toward what might happen in the future.   Mr. Burriss said some of the issues of usage could be handled appropriately with good architectural planning.  There was a large gallery area on the Opera House, and that was a positive element.    The building located where Taylor's now is had a gallery, and on the Avery-Downer House until its current restoration there was a gallery on the second floor. 
 Mr. Riffle said because of the height, the second-floor balcony does fit it. 
 Ms. O'Keefe said there is a balcony in the back, and  Mr. Burris said we discussed that last week. We wanted clarification of detailing and the applicant said he would continue that discussion.  We wanted to detail what is on the building itself rather than what is on the church next door.  Mr. Burriss added that what we are trying to achieve tonight is approval of concept.  Mr. Parris said the first thing is to look at the criteria.  This is probably the largest commercial renovation since the new Taylor's, so it deserves careful evaluation first and then we will look at detail.  Until the question of gaining access to the alley gets answered, we cannot render a decision on the application.     Mr. Parris feels it would be important to get our thoughts on record for each point. 
 Mr. Mitchell has no problem with this item.  Uses should be regulated eventually.   
 Mr. Riffle said the uses will be regulated by code.  The building lends itself to second-floor balcony just from the sheer size of it.
 
(b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.
Mr.  Burris stated that this item is the first commercial building that starts our downtown and some of the improvements would improve the character of the building.  It does refer back to things that were part of our history downtown, such as an active second floor. 

(c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.
 Mr. Parris said having a second floor lends symmetry to the building that wasn't there before.  Having it fully occupied will contribute to the district.  Mr. Burris said adding a second-floor dining space is unique, and any time we can offer a variety we are improving the draw of Granville. 
 Mr Riffle said anything that leaves space to expand should be encouraged.

(d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.
 Mr. Parris thought this echoed what we have noted in No. c.
Mr. Burriss said we probably should look at things like dumpster location, screening of ACs,  fans, etc.  In the final drawings it will be helpful to locate these items. 
 Mr. Martin asked what are the next steps, and Mr. Parris said the Village needs to give permission for the encroachment on their property.  Does this go to the person or to the property?  The applicant must talk with the Village for the concept, and Mr. Strayer said this will not change with ownership or physical configuration.  Mr. Strayer will continue his research on this question.  Mr. Martin found nothing at the courthouse.
 Mr. Parris opened the discussion for this public meeting to the public.  There were no comments.
 Mr. Martin's architect said there were no issues of great concern. We will wait for the pending resolution before making more drawings.
 Mr. Parris recommended getting specific materials, etc., to show us, particularly those expressed at the last meeting. 

 MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.  MR. RIFFLE  SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:
Sharon Joseph, 115 North Prospect - signs

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes several signs for the new business:  (1) sidewalk sign, (2) wall sign, (3) window sign, and (4) projecting sign.  She has withdrawn application for (1) sidewalk sign, with anticipation that better signage will be placed at the corner for several businesses.  Barb Hammond explained the application in more detail.  The color is pretty close to what is in our packets. 
 Mr. Burriss asked about the wall sign border and Ms. Hammond said they will all be consistent in borders.
     MR. BURRISS  MOVED TO APPROVE 04-098 WITH CONDITION THAT THE SIDEWALK SIGN BE REMOVED FROM THE APPLICATION.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Tim Ryan, 136 South Main Street - freestanding wall sign

Mr. Strayer said this one sign will be transferred to South Main Street.  The wall signs are really identification signs, so a variance will not be needed.  These are consistent with other tenants of the building. 
Mr. Parriss asked about the multiple business sign and Mr. Strayer said there is another sign for the other building.  Mr. Burriss asked whether the sign would match that of Steve Mershon and was told, Yes, it would be the same size.  The hanging sign will be 12"x36".  The colors are dark blue letters on white background with blue border.  Mr. Parris thought the motion should state the sign should be same size and shape as the one on the wall, and specify colors.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE #04-099 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE WALL SIGN MATCH THE EXISTING WALL SIGN IN SIZE AND SHAPE AND THAT THE HANGING SIGN BE BLUE WITH WHITE BACKGROUND.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ben Rader (Patty Urbatis), 120 ½ East Broadway, Canopy, 04-100
 Mr. Strayer said this is between Aladdin and Home Pleasures.  Mr. Parriss can understand the dilemma based on what's there now, surrounded by other, green, signs.    Patty Urbatis said there will be different levels as well.  Mr. Parris asked why it can't be brought down with less steep a pitch to just above the transom to be more consistent with Home Pleasures height.
 Mr. Burriss had less concern with the color differences but wants to bring down the top to expose the transom and add more light. Mr. Mitchell doesn't think we need consistency.  Mr. Riffle noted that this specifies a separate entry.   Mr. Burrriss asked about lighting and was told No, it would not be lit.  Although he doesn't like to cover the transom, he feels it is justified and he's thankful for the improvement to the Home Pleasures transoms.  Mr. Burriss asked whether there could be a white edge on the scallop, and Ms. Hammond agreed.  Mr. Burriss said a sign on the window was historic, and this is neat and clean and wondered whether we could consider this, but Mr. Parris was reluctant to do so.
 Regarding just the canopy, the sheets provided tonight were not part of the original application.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE WITH DRAWINGS SUBMITTED TONIGHT, AND THE CANOPY WILL HAVE A WHITE EDGING ON IT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ben Rader (Patty Urbatis),_120 ½ East Broadway, sign, 04-101

 The application is for the sign with white lettering for the abovementioned canopy

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 04-101 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ben Rader (Patty Urbatis),_120 ½ East Broadway, wall sign 04-103

 The applicant wants an 8'x24" wall sign, and Mr. Strayer said this meets all criteria.  Mr. Parriss was concerned about the placement and even if it hangs below the fascia it shouldn't cover the detail. It could go above, but we aren't sure where.  Mr. Burriss wondered whether the sign could have a blue border to have an edge to make it feel more finished.  Patty Urbatis was concerned about going over the maximum size.  Mr. Riffle thought it seemed big and that the mounting would look better below the dentil. She would have to work on the overall size of the board without changing the graphics. Members discussed the location in detail, and  Mr. Parriss asked whether Patty Urbatis could work with the Village Planner and she said Yes.
 
MR. BURRISS MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF 04-103 FOR THE WALL SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT 120 ½ E. BROADWAY, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE TO BE WORKED OUT AND APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ben Rader (Patty Urbatis),_120 ½ East Broadway, window sign 04-108

 The sign will be on the front door, there is no graphic included with application, but members saw a photo.  It will include her name, in white lettering.
 Mr. Parris said we could approve the application as long as we can agree on a color and the font being consistent with other signage, with final approval of layout by Village Planner.  Once she has the complete design made, she is to show it to him.  The font can be the same with different sized fonts.  It must conform with criteria for window signs.

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-108 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT WHEN THE SIGNAGE IS DESIGNED, FONT STYLE AND COLOR  WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER SIGNAGE, WITH FINAL APPROVAL TO BE GRANTED BY MR. STRAYER.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ben Rader (Patty Urbatis),_120 ½ East Broadway, sandwich board 04-102

 Mr. Strayer said the application is for a sidewalk sign outside the entrance door.  This would be the second sidewalk sign for the building and would require a variance.  There is no graphic provided with the application but a photo was shown. It would be blue with white lettering.
 Mr. Parris would have to see a very well done representation before he would consider this.    Ms. Urbatis does not feel she really will need this ultimately and will use it as a temporary sign.  Mr. Burriss asked how long it would be up and suggested 40 days, but may remain until canopy and other signage is complete.  The location was discussed, and it should be closer to the building, away from main walkway.  It may only be displayed when office is opened. 

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-102, WITH CONDITIONS:  (1) A TEMPORARY SANDWICH SIGN TO BE ERECTED (2) FOR A MAXIMUM OF 40 DAYS; (3)  IT WILL  COME DOWN WHEN PERMANENT SIGNAGE IS ERECTED, AND (4) WILL BE DISPLAYED ONLY DURING HOURS OF OPERATION.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Constance Barsky, 221 East Elm St. - roof replacement

The applicant wishes to replace an asphalt roof with a standing seam metal roof.  She states that the metal roof is historically accurate with the original house.  It is over the dining room extension.  Mr. Strayer thought it might be a tan/brown color.  Mr. Burriss would be willing to approve as long as Mr. Strayer approved the color.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE VILLAGE PLANNER WILL APPROVE FINAL COLOR.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. RIFFLE  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A THROUGH H 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 JULY 23, 2004.  MR. BURRISS  SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:    August 23 and September 6 (Labor Day)
Adjournment:    p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen from tape

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.