Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 12/18/06

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 18, 2006
Minutes

Members Present:  Chip Blanchard, Jack Burriss, Jackie O'Keefe, Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle
Members Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld
Visitors Present: Sharon Sellitto, Paul Jakob, Jessica Rettig, Kevin Kittle, Mary Alice
Minutes of October 23: Page 2, correct spelling of wolmanized and other.   MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of November 13:  MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of November 27:  MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments:    none
Swearing in of Witnesses:

Old Business:

 INT Business Company, 117 N. Prospect St., Window Sign
 Mr. Strayer said the application calls for an internally lit sign, and the owner has asked us to hold off making a decision until the revised sign is designed.  He would recommend denying this so the applicant can start over.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO DENY THE APPLICATION.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Michael Novak, 204 Munson Street - freestanding sign
 This was tabled to get further clarification on the sign and post.  They are not here tonight, so the application is still on the table.

Sign Art (CVS) 200 East Broadway - Signage

 THE APPLICATION WAS TAKEN OFF THE TABLE BY CONSENSUS.

 Kevin Klack provided photos of CVS Pharmacies in New Albany and Westerville to compare with Granville, but nothing new was presented to us tonight, although several recommendations were mentioned at our last meeting.

Drive-Through Signs:   After much discussion, Mr. Klack wanted to omit Signs 7 and 8.  Though they are informational, they contain the CVS logo, thus making them signs. 

Freestanding Sign:    Again, much discussion ensued on the language to be put on the sign.  "CVS" will replace "Taylors."  The mortar and pestle will remain.  "Drugs" gets changed to "PHARMACY."  PHOTO CENTER" will replace PRESCRIPTIONS. The fonts and color will remain the same as the original sign and painted.  

Wall Signs:  Discussion centered on the number of signs, the font style, color, height of letters, and thickness.    Mr. Blanchard wants them to match the TAYLORS sign at top of building façade.  Mr. Klack defended the number of signs by saying CVS always wants a lot of signs.  CVS understood they could have what Taylors had.  The consensus was to have 1" thick block letters, flat black, 12" high.  Mr. Burriss said having CVS big and PHARMACY small is scale disproportionate. Consistency of height is important for all signs.   
 Mr. Riffle said we were happy to conform as long as CVS was willing to be flexible on font and size.  Now since you can't reproduce font and size, GPC is saying we would like to have fewer signs. The code allows one sign, but we are trying to be nice and give you more.   Consensus agreed to allow 2 signs, to be placed wherever CVS wishes.
 The TAYLOR sign at front façade will stay without DRUGS and be centered.

Directional Sign:   Sign No. 10 will be in block and match font on the building. 

Temporary Signs:  are to be removed.  Holes are to be filled.

Variance for 2 signs instead of 1:  Approval includes variances.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN PACKAGE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) No 7 AND 8 TO BE OMITTED; (2)  FREESTANDING SIGN FONTS WILL BE SAME COLOR AND SAME FONT (AS EXISTING), PAINTED; (3) TWO WALL SIGNS, CVS TO SELECT LOCATION; (4) 12" HIGH LETTERS; (5) 1" BLOCK LOGO, PAINTED FLAT BLACK; (6) REMOVE "DRUGS" FROM FRONT FAÇADE AND CENTER "TAYLORS"; (7) ON #10, DIRECTIIONAL SIGN, MATCH BLOCK LETTERS; (8) TEMPORARYWINDOW SIGN TO BE REMOVED; AND (9) REPAIR HOLES.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Members considered the criteria for variance for two signs:

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.  True, Special circumstances are that it is the biggest building in the downtown area with more frontage, more wall space, on a corner lot.
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.  True, other buildings have two wall signs. 
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  False.
D. That the granting of 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.  True, there are other structures with two wall signs.
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.  True, it would not adversely affect others.
 
Finding of Fact:  MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A AND C UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN MR. STRAYER'S MEMO OF DECEMBER 18.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

226 South Mulberry Street - Shared Driveway

 Mr. Strayer said the neighbors with 222 want an access agreement to put in the driveway as proposed.  The closing is very soon, contingent upon GPC's approving the idea without vote on a formal application, which will be forthcoming at the next meeting.  The application did come in but while Mr. Strayer was on vacation, so there was insufficient time to notify neighbors.  Both homeowners are in agreement.  Mr. Strayer said the only thing that would put a fly in the ointment would be if 222 did not want to sign; then we could not approve it.  There is a curb cut there now but no driveway.  Consensus agreed there was no problem in the plan.

Jessica Rettig, 111 West College Street

 The owners want to remove the existing rotting garage and build a two-story addition over a two-car garage.  The structure will be raised a couple of inches to allow drainage underneath.  The in-laws are moving in, so they need another bedroom and bath.  It will be slightly larger than the current garage and there will be steps into the house.
 GPC discussed the windows and requested a drawing of the rear elevation.
 Mr. Riffle wants to see more consistency with the house. 
 A neighbor was present and approved of the plans, but requested that the color be consistent across the front. Ms. Rettig stated they will match the color as closely as possible.

Kevin Kittle, 224 East College Street

 Mr. Kittle described the process he is undergoing to continue the renovation of the house begun by Lisa McKivergin.  They took the front walls out and put in new ones, but new problems arise and he would like someone from GPC to meet him at the house to look at what's going on. 
 Mr. Riffle noted that all the original trim has been stripped off and it was to have been preserved in its historical integrity. Mr. Kittle said it was rotten and being unable to buy 16" boards, he will replace them with 12" boards. The neighbors were happy that he was repairing the house, and no one told him it needed to be historically preserved. Mr. Strayer said he can replicate the best way he can.     Mr. Riffle noted that stripped of its original characteristics, the house looks like any other house.
 Mr. Blanchard thought the amended elevation is better than what was in there before, but our concern is that the applicant must adhere to the approved permit given to Lisa McKivergin.
 Mr. Strayer said there were two conditions to the application:  (1) final window design and placement be approved by him and (2) the fence is approved by him also.
 Mr. Burris asked the applicant to be sure corner boards are as the original the proportions need to be as they were.
 Mr. Riffle said that now that the building has been stripped of all its elements, it is no longer a historic building.
 Mr. Kittle said what was there was cedar shake covering the entire building.  Flat board siding covered that up.  They were going to go back to the flat board.
 Mr. Riffle asked how they were going to replicate the window trim, and Mr. Kittle said it's 1x4 with back board.  Mr. Riffle stated that we need to consider what was originally there and the wings, which were added on later are of lesser importance.

Adjournment:  9:23 p.m.
Next Meetings:  January 8, and 22
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

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.