Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 25, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Lyle McClow, Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Gina Reeves and Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting).

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Stephen Hawk, Melissa Hartfield (filling in for Jackie O’Keefe), Bethany Black, Gretchen Hollingsworth, Lance Clarke, Carrie Mumma, and Denanna McKinley.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

209 North Granger Street, Gretchen Hollingsworth, Application #08-103

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Gretchen Hollingsworth and request is for approval of window replacements. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Gretchen Hollingsworth.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-103:

Gretchen Hollingsworth, 209 North Granger Street, stated that she would like to replace double-hung windows in the front of the home and three windows on the side of the home that are nailed shut (northern and eastern elevation).  She stated that the trim will remain and there will be no difference in the size of the replacement windows.  Mr. Ryan clarified that there will be a total of six windows replaced.  Mr. McClow asked if the replacements will be double hung and Ms. Hollingsworth stated yes.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-103:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission consensus was yes.  Mr. Mitchell added that the look will not change since the replacement is with double hung windows that are currently in place.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant indicated that they want to install AC12 Series, Double Hung Vinyl Replacement Windows.  The windows are currently wood windows, painted white. 

f)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant indicated that they want to install AC12 Series, Double Hung Vinyl Replacement Windows.  The windows are currently wood windows, painted white. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-103 as submitted with the stipulation that the windows on the east and north elevation are the only windows replaced subject to this application.

 

Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-103 is approved with the above stated condition. 

 

(Mr. Mitchell recused himself from discussion of Application #08-104 at 7:10 PM because he is the applicant.)

 

303 South Main Street, Tom Mitchell, Application #08-104

VRD (Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Tom Mitchell and the request is for approval of the following:

            1)         Removal of southern deck and handicap ramp;

            2)         Removal of south patio door and replacement with window (to match the

                        location, materials and finish of the elevation on the north side);

            3)         Install 2 air conditioning condensers on the north side, screened with

                        evergreen plant materials;

            4)         Remove imitation shutters;

            5)         Remove screen enclosure on southwestern porch and restore to original.

The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the

Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Tom Mitchell.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-104:

Mr. McClow asked the location of the air-conditioning units.  Mr. Mitchell stated that they are on the West Maple Street side of the home.  He added that they are not currently screened and he intends to add screening.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this is the only practical location for the air-conditioning units.  Mr. McClow asked if it could be placed in the rear of the home.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it would be difficult.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he would like to remove the wood handicap ramp and deck and not put anything in its place.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the southern elevation where the double doors are being  removed – will have the same façade as the north side of the home.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that they will be similar.  Mr. Burriss asked if the trim would be replaced.  Mr. Mitchell stated yes, but there is some trim within the screened area that he does not want to have to duplicate at this time.  He stated that there is currently no trim in place on the southern elevation porch, while there is trim on the northern elevation porch.  He went on to say that the brackets would remain in place, but not the trim between the columns – which is not even visible.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he would duplicate most of the trim visible on the north elevation porch.  Mayor Hartfield asked if this trim is behind the screening.  Mr. Mitchell stated that most of the ornate trim she is referring to is behind the screening and it would be very difficult to reproduce.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that he would like to remove the existing shutters. Mr. Mitchell asked if a white picket fence is allowed to use as screening for the air-conditioning units.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission would need to approve the style of the proposed fence.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it is his intention to use evergreen landscaping for screening the air-conditioning units. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-104:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that Mr. Mitchell is attempting to restore the home to what was originally in place.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the home is being restored.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant would like to:

  1. a.      Remove the southern deck and handicap ramp;
  2. b.      Remove the southern patio door and replace it with a window (to match the location, materials and finish of the elevation on the north side);
  3. c.       Install two (2) air-conditioning condensers on the north side, screened with evergreen plant materials
  4. d.      Remove imitation shutters;
  5. e.      Remove screen enclosure on southwestern porch and restore to original.

f)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission stated the following:

a)                  The applicant would like to remove the southern deck and handicap ramp; (The ramp and deck would be considered “modern” addition, therefore removal of these items should restore he historical appearance of the southern side of the building);

b)                  Remove the southern patio door and replace it with a window (to match the location, materials, and finish of the elevation on the north side);

c)                  Install two (2) air-conditioning units on the north side and screen with evergreen plant materials;

d)                  Remove imitation shutters;

e)                  Remove screen enclosure on the southwestern porch and restore to original.

g)  Use of Live Plant Material: The applicant has indicated that they will plant evergreen material (boxwoods) surrounding the proposed air-conditioning units to screen them from view.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-104 with the following conditions:

1)                  That once the applicant removes the two southern patio doors they shall be required to replace the doors with a window to match in scale and detail the corresponding northern exposure, as shown in Exhibit “B”;

2)                  That once the applicant removes the enclosure from the existing porch the detailing that is replaced on the porch should be identical to the existing porch structure.

 

Mr. McClow seconded. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-104 is Approved with the above stated conditions.

 

(Mr. Mitchell returned to the Planning Commission meeting at 7:25 PM.)

 

 

236 West Elm, Stephen Hawk, Application #08-105

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Stephen Hawk the request is for approval of garage door replacements. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Stephen Hawk

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-105:

Stephen Hawk, 236 West Elm Street, stated that the original doors in place are wood and they were never properly prepped to hold paint.  He stated that the new doors would be painted. 

 

 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-105:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded Yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is adding a further level of detail to the carriage house. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission consensus was yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture: The applicant is proposing replacement of existing wood garage doors with a Wane Dalton 9700 Series, Westfield, Steel garage door with overlay.  The garage doors are carriage style doors with 16 panel arched windows at the top of each of the doors.  The garage doors will be painted the same color as the existing garage doors. 

f)        Use of Details: The applicant is proposing replacement of existing wood garage doors with a Wane Dalton 9700 Series, Westfield, Steel garage door with overlay.  The garage doors are carriage style doors with 16 panel arched windows at the top of each of the doors.  The garage doors will be painted the same color as the existing garage doors and will have hardware on the front elevation, reminiscent of an old carriage style building.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-105 with the following condition:  The replacement garage doors will be painted to match the color on the existing garage doors.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Burriss, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-105 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

123 West Broadway, Carrie Mumma, Application #08-107

VID (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Carrie Mumma the request is for approval of a four foot (4') dog ear wood picket fence to be located in the side and rear yard.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Carrie Mumma.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-107:

Ms. Mumma, 123 West Broadway, asked if she is able to paint the house any color she wishes.  Mr. Ryan explained that the Planning Commission is only reviewing the application currently before them.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission has no control over what colors are used for painting – except in the Suburban Business District – such as Speedway and Arby’s.  Ms. Mumma stated that she asks the question about colors allowed on a house because her home is bright blue and she can’t understand how this is considered to be historically appropriate for a bungalow style home.  Ms. Mumma stated that her intentions are to paint the fence white.  Mr. Mitchell asked about the   location of the fence and its proximity to the church.  Ms. Mumma stated that it will be approximately three (3’) feet in from the property line and it that it will be closer towards her home.  Ms. Mumma stated that her neighbors, the Sinsabaughs, said they liked the fence and color.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant if the fence will be painted on both sides.  Ms. Mumma stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant is aware that the finished side should face the neighbors.  Ms. Mumma stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-107:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded Yes.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission consensus was yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

e)      Materials and Texture: The Planning Commission stated that the applicant is proposing a four foot (4’) wood picket fence.

f)        Use of Detail: The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is requesting a four foot (4’) picket fence in the rear and side yard of the property to match the neighbors fence to the west.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-102 with the following conditions:

1)                  That the finished side shall face the neighbors to the east, north, west & south; and

2)                  That the fence shall be painted white to match the neighbor’s existing fence.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-107 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

 

 

115 East Broadway, Granville Historical Society, Application #08-108

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Granville Historical Society and the request if for approval of either:

1) Stucco panel filling opening, painted green to match the old door color; or

2) Steel or fiberglass two panel door in wood frame, painted green to match the

old door color.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Lance Clarke.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-108:

Lance Clarke, Denison Drive, stated that he is back before the Planning Commission to see if putting a non-functional door painted green with no hinges is permissible.  He stated that they would attempt to match the color of the door in the rear and the new door would be a two panel door no glass in it.  Mr. McClow asked about the proposal on the application to place stucco on top of the block.  Mr. Clarke stated that they are willing to do either option.  Mr. McClow indicated that he would not be in favor of the stucco because he doesn’t feel it would work.  Ms. Terry asked if the door located in the area before was a two panel door.  Mr. Clarke stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if a two panel door was necessary.  Mr. McClow stated that if it matches existing doors on the building – it would look better.  Mr. Burriss stated that he has thought for several weeks what the Planning Commission might have proposed as a solution had the Ohio Historical Society come to the Planning commission to begin with.  He stated that if they do install a door he questions if they would be creating a maintenance issue.  Mr. Clarke stated that the original door that was in place was rusted and it has been blocked physically from the inside for 10-15 years.  Mr. Clarke stated that the previous door was also a security issue. 

Mr. Burriss asked if there has been any consideration to replacing the sidewalk area. 

He stated that if it was to be replaced and installed further away from the building - then a landscaping area could be created in there.  He went on to say that this could be something positive in this area.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has also indicated that the window well is an issue and the current condenser is not properly screened.  Mr. Burriss stated that the other side wall also doesn’t match the existing stone.  Mr. Clarke agreed that it doesn’t match the stone…but it has been there for a while.  Mr. Burriss questioned who owns the sidewalk.  Ms. Terry stated that it is on private property.

Mr. Burriss stated that a landscaping area would be a component of a longer range better solution.  He went on to say that he knows in his own mind that a door isn’t the best solution, plus he doesn’t want to create a maintenance problem.  Mr. Burriss stated that the area is also not set for a frame.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that with a one inch and ½ door a frame would work.  Mr. McClow and Mr. Mitchell did not like the idea of using stucco and felt that the replacement door was the best alternative.  Mr. Clarke stated that he could install a 2 1/8th” inch door jam.  He stated that he could paint the door any color the Planning Commission chooses.  Mr. Burriss asked if the Planning Commission is moving in the direction of a door – could they look at a better door than what was originally proposed.  The Planning Commission reviewed a list of doors.  They agreed that they do not want to see glass in the faux door.  The Planning Commission members highly preferred the look of a six panel door.   

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-108:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that a traditional style door will be used in place on concrete block.  Mr. Burriss stated that the new door would be restoring the historical fenestration pattern of the building, rather than a blank wall.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the physical environment is enhanced.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the structure is protected.  

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant has indicated that they would be willing to place a steel or fiberglass six (6) panel door in a wood frame, within the doorway area, painted to match existing painted doors on the building.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-108 with the following condition:  A frame and six panel door per Exhibit “A” painted to match other exterior painted doors.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-108 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

(Mr. Burriss recused himself from discussions/voting for Application #08-109 and #08-110 at 8:00 PM)

 

226B East Broadway, Noir Investments/Bethany Black, Application #08-109

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was submitted by Bethany Black and the property is owned by Deanna McKinley.  The request is for a change of use within Category “E”: Retail Outlets, from a Furniture Store to a Clothing Store.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Deanna McKinley, and Bethany Black. 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-109:

Mr. Mitchell stated that there has been discussion of leasing some of the parking out.  Deanna McKinley stated that a total of eight parking spaces are shown with parking available in the rear of the building.  She stated that these spaces are needed for other renters in the building.  Mr. Terry stated that six parking spaces are required for this change of use application. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Approve Application #08-109 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.  

 

Application #08-109 is approved as submitted. 

 

 

226B East Broadway, Noir Investments/Bethany Black, Application #08-110

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was submitted by Bethany Black and the property is owned by Deanna McKinley.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a free-standing sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – applicants were previously sworn in.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-110:

Mr. Ryan stated that the sign would be for a black and white sign with no lighting and that the posts are wood and the sign is also wood.  Mr. Ryan asked the location of the sign.  Ms. Terry state that it would be behind the sidewalk in the grassy area – center of the building.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Approve Application #08-110 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.  

 

Application #08-110 is approved as submitted.         

 

(Mr. Burriss re-joined the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:15 PM)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #08-81:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  It is a new structure set on an existing foundation that has been detailed to complement the existing Cleveland Hall structure. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes and by the upgrading of the existing structure to install new windows - it incorporates some of the historical structure in the old structure with the new structure.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  The University is part of the community and the Arts building contributes to the vitality of the District.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes, and Mr. Burriss added that the existing building is being restored.

 

Review and approval of exterior modifications to existing Cleveland Hall as follows:

1)                  Replacement of true divided light wood windows with aluminum windows;

2)                  Replacement of wood and aluminum doors with aluminum doors;

3)                  Installation of ten (10) skylights on top of the pitched roof of the main building, adjacent to the skylights;

4)                  Installation of four (4) roof hatches on top of pitched roof of the main building, adjacent to the skylights;

5)                  Replacement of existing brick and metal porch rails on the first and second floor levels of the southern elevation with new metal railing; and

Three (3) additions to existing Cleveland Hall as follows
1)         Two-story addition attached to the western core building on the north side;

2)         Two-story addition attached to the eastern stone portion of the building; and

3)         Two-story addition on top of the eastern stone portion of the building.

The request is also for addition sight lighting, dumpster enclosure, and plaza space on the eastern side of the east addition.

 

The Planning Commission findings were as follows:

Jack Thornborough appeared at the hearing on the matter and requested the opportunity to be heard in person.  Mr. Thornborough did not prove any direct, present injury or prejudice to any personal property right that would occur if the application is approved or denied, nor did Mr. Thornborough establish standing under any other provision of 1141.05(c).  The Planning Commission did not consider or relay upon any evidence or testimony presented by him to the Planning Commission.  Furthermore, the Planning Commission found the request of the applicant, as indicated in the submitted information in Application #08-81, to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and herby gives their approval of the application with the stated conditions from the August 11, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-103.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss (abstain), McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0, 1 abstention.

 

New Business:

Application #08-103:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of the application, with any conditions as listed below.  Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application #08-103 as submitted with the stipulation that the east and north windows are the only windows subject to approval with this application. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-103.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-104:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of the application with the following conditions:

6)                  Once the applicant removes the two southern patio doors they shall be required to replace the doors with a window to match in scale and detail the corresponding northern exposure, as shown in Exhibit “B”;

7)                  That once the applicant removes the enclosure from the existing porch the detailing that is replaced on the porch should be identical to the existing porch. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-104.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell (abstain), Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-105:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of the application, with the following conditions:  That the replacement garage doors will be painted to match the color on the existing garage doors.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-105.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-107:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of the application, with any conditions as listed below:

1)                  That the finished side shall face the neighbors to the east, north, west and south;

2)                  That the fence shall be painted white to match the neighbors existing fence.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-107.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-108:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of the application with the following condition: The Planning Commission is approving a frame and door per Exhibit “A,” painted to match other exterior painted doors. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-108.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-109:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of the application as submitted.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-109.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Burriss (abstain), Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-110:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of the application as submitted.

Mr.  Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-110.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Burriss (abstain), Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to Approve absent Planning Commission Members:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to excuse Gina Reeves from the August 25th Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

August 11, 2008

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the August 11, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

July 28, 2008

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the July 25, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burris.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:30 PM. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Next meetings:

September 8, 2008 (Mr. McClow indicated that he is unable to attend this meeting.)

September 22, 2008

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.