GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 27, 2006
Members Present, Jack Burriss, Tim Riffle (Chair), Chip Blanchard, Debbie Tegtmeyer
Members Absent: Tom Mitchell (Vice Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld
Visitors Present: Kevin Klack, Bill Heim, Tom Linzell, L. Hoirius, Matt McGowan
Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments: none
Minutes of October 23 and November 13: Postponed until more members are present.
Michael Novak, 204 Munson Street - Exterior Modifications
The applicant wishes to change doors and shutters, add front canopy, and prepare the parking area for paving. GPC approved a change of use for a chiropractic office earlier, and Mr. Novak provided blueprints tonight. He explained how the plans will be altered a bit; there will be a handicapped ramp, and the doors are as in the picture he provided. The sign will match the Granville Lumber sign, with dark green. The existing siding will go all the way down, covering the cinder block, and Mrs. Novak (?) described the half shutters on each side. The new porch will be shingled as the existing roof. She said she will work on parking lot lighting.
Mr. Strayer added that we can handle the paving and other things in regard to the parking lot later, after the engineer takes a look at it.
Mr. Burriss asked about the air conditioner unit, and Mr. Novak said it will be on the opposite side.
Mr. Riffle asked about the window and was told it will be double-hung. He wants to see a quick sketch of how the windows will look on the back. They will not change the opening for the door. He noted that the new siding will not match the existing color exactly, as over time the sun alters the color. Mrs. Novak said they will do the best they can, and with landscaping it will not be so visible. Mr. Burriss said to leave the other three sides alone or paint it all.
It appeared to Mr. Burriss that on the site plan the fence is removed, and Mr. Novak said the architect was wrong about that.
Mr. Blanchard thinks the improvements to the façade are much needed.
The lighting of the parking lot should be toned down, and they are to bring in a lighting plan.
MR.BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 06-160 FOR EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THE VILLAGE PLANNER WILL APPROVE THE REAR WINDOW LAYOUT AND (2) A CUTSHEET FOR THE FRONT LIGHTS IS TO BE PROVIDED. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Michael Novak, 204 Munson Street - sign
For the above application, the applicant wishes a freestanding sign and showed a picture of his proposed 2x5 sign. It will have a small light shining from the ground, to be lit only during open hours, and he showed where the light will be located. It will be nicely landscaped.
Mr. Burriss asked about materials and Mr. Novak said it will be weathered cedar like Granville Lumber's sign with the same color.
Mr. Novak said it will have finials on the posts, and since no drawing was provided, Mr. Burriss helped him design the sign. We need to know the exact size, and Mr. Novak will provide more detail
AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TABLE 06-161 FOR FREESTANDING SIGN PENDING RECEIPTOF DRAWING FOR MODIFICATION OF POSTS FROM SQUARE TO ROUND. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
UPON ADVICE OF THE LAW DIRECTOR THE MOTION NEEDED TO BE REOPENED AND AMENDED:
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO REOPEN 06-161. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO AMEND OUR ORIGINAL CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AND REQUEST A CUT SHEET OF THE NEW COLUMN TO BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE OTHER THINGS WE STATED EARLIER. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. BURRISS MOVED THAT 06-161 BE ENDORSED AS AMENDED. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Lelia Hoiriis, 222 South Mulberry - fence
The application is for a 42" picket fence in front and a dog-ear style fence in the rear. The front fence is to be erected after the installation of the shared driveway. There is no driveway there currently, but they will add one later. She wants to complete the front fence now and the rear fence later.
Ms. Hoiriis said the fence will be outside the porch and will be dog-eared with 1 x 4 clipped corners.
Mr. Burriss asked how close to the public sidewalk would it be and she said right on the sidewalk. Mr. Burriss said typically we want it 9" or so back for sidewalk issues.
Mr. Blanchard asked Ms. Hoiriis to show on the drawing where the fence would go. He said he would prefer to see the fence be more consistent with the existing architercture. The dog does not require a 6' fence, and he would prefer 42" in the rear. Ms. Tegtmeyer thought it would look pretty much like the neighbor's fence.
Mr. Burriss asked about a gate in the front and was told it would be where the walk is with a post on either side with a hinge inward. In the back the gate will be somewhere toward the garage.
Mr. Blanchard would like to attach a stipulation on material and color.
MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE 061-162 FOR INSTALLATION OF THE FENCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) REAR FENCE TO MATCH FRONT FENCE IN HEIGHT AND DETAIL; (2) IT IS TO BE MADE OF NATURAL MATERIAL, CEDAR WOOD; (3) THE FRONT FENCE WILL BE HELD BACK 12" BEYOND THE EAST SIDE OF SIDEWALK. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
St. Edwards Church, 785 Newark Granville Road - Sign
The freestanding sign is getting hard treatment and they want modifications to make it more readable. They will use the same tag and same font. Mr. Linzell, representative, said the letters will be slightly smaller.
MR. BURRISS MOVED THAT 06-163 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
INT Business Company, 117 N. Prospect Street
This is to remain on the table.
CVS (Sign Art Co.), 200 East Broadway - Signage
Mr. Strayer stated that we should address the fact that the application may require a variance for the number of signs. The code allows 1 wall sign and 2 incidental signs; the proposal is for 5 walls signs and 4 incidental signs. We thought it would be acceptable since Taylor's had that number of signs, but maybe a variance is needed. We also need to provide an opportunity to discuss the freestanding sign and its language, and Jim Gorey is here to help with legalities. The Taylor's signs appear to be larger than the CVS signs and are within aesthetic reason and appear appropriate for the architecture. For the pylon sign CVS has 1½" deep aluminum faces painted GripGard semi-gloss white with black pressure sensitive vinyl, and Mr. Strayer does not feel this is appropriate. He said we discussed what color Taylor's signs were (bronze), but we never made modification on color.
This evening we would have to approve variances for:
1. Number of wall signs
2. Size of incidental signs
3. Modifications to design
Mr. Burriss had requested that letters be all one size, and we shrank it to the size of the Taylor signs.
He asked if they had looked at the possibility of "CVS Pharmacy" being in the same font as "Taylor's", and Kevin Klack said No.
Mr. Blanchard said upon reading the description for signage, he does not feel these were consistent with what we tried to get, and Mr. Burriss did not think the material CVS supplied was high glossy semi-gloss black.
Mr. Riffle said we are looking at signage for the business. The building signage is something separate
Mr. Blanchard appreciates "Taylor Drug" being on top of the building, but it seems to compete with CVS signage. Mr. Riffle does not consider it part of CVS signage; "TAYLOR" advertises the building and "CVS" advertises the business.
Matt McGowan noted that there was a freestanding sign at IGA and they wanted to change it and they were not allowed to do so and had to put in a monument sign. The sign in front of CVS is a historic sign and should not be altered. Village Council should limit signs. Bob Evans and Arbys limited their signs. When you tell someone that you have to limit signs, you have to limit CVS also. Signage at Westerville is smaller, and GPC needs to look at other CVS stores. No other drive-through has two signs on the wall.
Kevin Klack said tonight's sign package includes improvements we talked about at the last meeting.
Mr. Riffle reminded the group that we need to look at the number of signs. One wall sign is allowed. Should we grant a variance to allow more than one?
Mr. Strayer said under the code the total number of one per building, maximum size is 262 sq.ft and the proposed area is 65 sq.ft.
Re incidental signage, the maximum number is two per lot and they ask for 4. Where they are more in number, they are less in square footage.
Mr. Burriss would like to see photographs for the New Albany CVS. We thought these would be brought in earlier.
Mr. Strayer wanted to move forward with temporary approval for the freestanding sign and allow them to remove the last "Taylors" from the west side.
Mr. Riffle does not mind if he takes the Taylor signs off. This does not refer to the marquee.
Jim Gorey cited from the code that you may look at this application as a whole. If you approve it, you automatically approve the variances. You may do it one by one.
Ms. Tegtmeyer asked whether CVS really needs so many signs, and Mr. Klack said CVS wanted as many signs as would be allowed. They wanted to use what was there before as site replacement. Ms. Tegtmeyer thought that then there really is no compelling reason,
Mr. Burriss would be comfortable looking at the change of the name of the building and the free standing sign in the front and probably would not look at the proposed 4 signs for the building until we have photos for other CVS stores.
Mr. Blanchard noted the proposal of the gigantic block letters hurts the request to put in that many. As prominent as they are, they are completely inappropriate.
The discussion centered upon changing the language on the pylon sign and the colors. The sign would not be allowed today.
Mr. McGowan stated that the Taylor's pylon sign could be moved as long as it was not modified. That sign counts as a building sign if you allow them to change it. Mr. Blanchard noted they did not have vinyl letters when the sign was erected in 1906.
Mr. Burriss suggested leaving the sign exactly as it was and omitting it from the CVS sign package. He would hate to see it torn down, as it is a piece of appropriate street literature history. It becomes more of an element, like the clock, the drinking fountain, or the bell, and Mr. Blanchard agrees. When you start removing things, you start losing your village character.
Jim Gorey noted that we need to consider issues on (1) whether we have control over the sign under historic preservation and (2) content of the sign. Unless we can maintain some historic preservation of the character of the sign, we need to be careful about discussing the content of the sign. If we can't maintain the antiquity, we have no right to let anyone change the face except for nonconforming the sign. We could end up buying it.
Mr. Klack said CVS was not enthusiastic about keeping the mortar and pestle.
Mr. Burriss reviewed the discussion so far:
1. He thinks GPC is in favor of what we discussed so far.
2. His understanding was that "Taylors" will stay on top of the building and "Drugs" will be removed.
3. Have only one drive-through sign. Remove "CVS Pharmacy".
4. We are allowed 4 sq.ft per sign for incidental signs.
5. Remove signage above west window.
6. We are not comfortable with the thickness of the letters or the color of the material.
7. GPC likes the awning.
Mr. Strayer said if the incidental signs are part of the signage, then where would be7 wall signs instead of 5-two wall signs in the back and the parking sign and 2 12' signs.
Mr. Riffle noted that on the drive-through pharmacy sign, it says, "Let us know if you want anything else." But cars are not supposed to sit there. It does not say "drive-through pharmacy and other incidental items."
Mr. Blanchard thought we could combine those two signs into one. Mr. McGowan said drive-throughs are not permitted in Granville.
Mr. Blanchard asked from a legal standpoint is it more advantageous to table this and consider all the entities as one package, and Mr. Gorey said that is up to you. You may take it piece by piece and construct a final decision or construct a single package. Mr. Burriss thought the package as proposed is not acceptable.
Mr. Riffle said when we approved it originally we thought it was a replacement. Mr. Strayer wanted him to go back to CVS and design something similar to what was there before. We need a similar font and more style in letters.
1.We would like to see the store sign changed in the manner we talked about.
2. We would like to see the masthead changed to TAYLOR as proposed.
3. Signage on building to be done in a one-foot-high consistent letters across entire sign but in a font, material, and mounting consistent with the building.
4. The current incidental signs must be smaller
5. We want to look at New Albany signs.
6. Remove CVS from incidental signs
7. Combine 2 drive-through signs. Remove possibility of purchasing additional items.
8. Have all fonts and logos be consistent.
9. "Drive-through Pharmacy" needs to be consistent.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TABLE 06-147. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact: MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A,C, AND D UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF NOVEMBER 27, 2006. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 9:40 p.m.
Next Meetings: December 18 and January 8